[PATCH v3 10/10] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add get-reg-list test

[Haibo Xu]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 6:44 PM Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:05:59PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:35 PM Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:12:18AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list aia_config = {
> > > > +     .sublists = {
> > > > +     BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     AIA_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     {0},
> > > > +     },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list fp_f_d_config = {
> > > > +     .sublists = {
> > > > +     BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     FP_F_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     FP_D_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     {0},
> > > > +     },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct vcpu_reg_list *vcpu_configs[] = {
> > > > +     &zicbo_config,
> > > > +     &aia_config,
> > > > +     &fp_f_d_config,
> > > > +};
> > > > +int vcpu_configs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(vcpu_configs);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see we have a bit of a problem with the configs for riscv. Since we
> > > don't disable anything we're not testing, then for any test that is
> > > missing, for example, the f and d registers, we'll get output like
> > > "There are 66 new registers. Consider adding them to the blessed reg
> > > list with the following lines:" and then a dump of all the f and d
> > > registers. The test doesn't fail, but it's messy and confusing. Ideally
> > > we'd disable all registers of all sublists not in the config, probably
> > > by starting by disabling everything and then only reenabling the ones
> > > in the config.
> > >
> > > Anything that can't be disabled is either a KVM bug, i.e. we should
> > > be able to disable it, because we can't expect every host to have it,
> > > or it needs to be in the base register sublist (meaning every host
> > > will always have it).
> > >
> >
> > HI Andrew,
> >
> > I found several multi-letters ISA EXT(AIA/SSTC etc) were not allowed
> > to be disabled.
> > Is it a bug? shall we fix it？
>
> Extensions that a guest could use (regardless of whether or not the host
> described it in the guest's isa string), because the instructions or CSR
> accesses don't trap, can't truly be disabled. So, it's not a bug to
> prohibit disabling them and indeed the test cases should actually ensure
> disabling them fails.
>

So these kinds of ISA_EXT_* regs should be in the base reg list, right?

Thanks,
Haibo

> Thanks,
> drew