selftests: Test the new RISC-V hwprobe interface

This adds a test for the recently added RISC-V interface for probing
hardware capabilities.  It happens to be the first selftest we have for
RISC-V, so I've added some infrastructure for those as well.

Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230407231103.2622178-6-evan@rivosinc.com


Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>

tools/testing/selftests/Makefile

@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ TARGETS += pstore
 TARGETS += ptrace
 TARGETS += openat2
 TARGETS += resctrl
+TARGETS += riscv
 TARGETS += rlimits
 TARGETS += rseq
 TARGETS += rtc

tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile

+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+# Originally tools/testing/arm64/Makefile
+
+# When ARCH not overridden for crosscompiling, lookup machine
+ARCH ?= $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
+
+ifneq (,$(filter $(ARCH),riscv))
+RISCV_SUBTARGETS ?= hwprobe
+else
+RISCV_SUBTARGETS :=
+endif
+
+CFLAGS := -Wall -O2 -g
+
+# A proper top_srcdir is needed by KSFT(lib.mk)
+top_srcdir = $(realpath ../../../../)
+
+# Additional include paths needed by kselftest.h and local headers
+CFLAGS += -I$(top_srcdir)/tools/testing/selftests/
+
+CFLAGS += $(KHDR_INCLUDES)
+
+export CFLAGS
+export top_srcdir
+
+all:
+	@for DIR in $(RISCV_SUBTARGETS); do				\
+		BUILD_TARGET=$(OUTPUT)/$$DIR;			\
+		mkdir -p $$BUILD_TARGET;			\
+		$(MAKE) OUTPUT=$$BUILD_TARGET -C $$DIR $@;		\
+	done
+
+install: all
+	@for DIR in $(RISCV_SUBTARGETS); do				\
+		BUILD_TARGET=$(OUTPUT)/$$DIR;			\
+		$(MAKE) OUTPUT=$$BUILD_TARGET -C $$DIR $@;		\
+	done
+
+run_tests: all
+	@for DIR in $(RISCV_SUBTARGETS); do				\
+		BUILD_TARGET=$(OUTPUT)/$$DIR;			\
+		$(MAKE) OUTPUT=$$BUILD_TARGET -C $$DIR $@;		\
+	done
+
+# Avoid any output on non riscv on emit_tests
+emit_tests: all
+	@for DIR in $(RISCV_SUBTARGETS); do				\
+		BUILD_TARGET=$(OUTPUT)/$$DIR;			\
+		$(MAKE) OUTPUT=$$BUILD_TARGET -C $$DIR $@;		\
+	done
+
+clean:
+	@for DIR in $(RISCV_SUBTARGETS); do				\
+		BUILD_TARGET=$(OUTPUT)/$$DIR;			\
+		$(MAKE) OUTPUT=$$BUILD_TARGET -C $$DIR $@;		\
+	done
+
+.PHONY: all clean install run_tests emit_tests

tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/Makefile

+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+# Copyright (C) 2021 ARM Limited
+# Originally tools/testing/arm64/abi/Makefile
+
+TEST_GEN_PROGS := hwprobe
+
+include ../../lib.mk
+
+$(OUTPUT)/hwprobe: hwprobe.c sys_hwprobe.S
+	$(CC) -o$@ $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $^

tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c

+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+#include <stddef.h>
+#include <asm/hwprobe.h>
+
+/*
+ * Rather than relying on having a new enough libc to define this, just do it
+ * ourselves.  This way we don't need to be coupled to a new-enough libc to
+ * contain the call.
+ */
+long riscv_hwprobe(struct riscv_hwprobe *pairs, size_t pair_count,
+		   size_t cpu_count, unsigned long *cpus, unsigned int flags);
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv)
+{
+	struct riscv_hwprobe pairs[8];
+	unsigned long cpus;
+	long out;
+
+	/* Fake the CPU_SET ops. */
+	cpus = -1;
+
+	/*
+	 * Just run a basic test: pass enough pairs to get up to the base
+	 * behavior, and then check to make sure it's sane.
+	 */
+	for (long i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+		pairs[i].key = i;
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, &cpus, 0);
+	if (out != 0)
+		return -1;
+	for (long i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
+		/* Fail if the kernel claims not to recognize a base key. */
+		if ((i < 4) && (pairs[i].key != i))
+			return -2;
+
+		if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR)
+			continue;
+
+		if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA)
+			continue;
+
+		return -3;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * This should also work with a NULL CPU set, but should not work
+	 * with an improperly supplied CPU set.
+	 */
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, 0, 0);
+	if (out != 0)
+		return -4;
+
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, &cpus, 0);
+	if (out == 0)
+		return -5;
+
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, 0, 0);
+	if (out == 0)
+		return -6;
+
+	/*
+	 * Check that keys work by providing one that we know exists, and
+	 * checking to make sure the resultig pair is what we asked for.
+	 */
+	pairs[0].key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR;
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 1, 1, &cpus, 0);
+	if (out != 0)
+		return -7;
+	if (pairs[0].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR)
+		return -8;
+
+	/*
+	 * Check that an unknown key gets overwritten with -1,
+	 * but doesn't block elements after it.
+	 */
+	pairs[0].key = 0x5555;
+	pairs[1].key = 1;
+	pairs[1].value = 0xAAAA;
+	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 2, 0, 0, 0);
+	if (out != 0)
+		return -9;
+
+	if (pairs[0].key != -1)
+		return -10;
+
+	if ((pairs[1].key != 1) || (pairs[1].value == 0xAAAA))
+		return -11;
+
+	return 0;
+}

tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/sys_hwprobe.S

+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/* Copyright (C) 2023 Rivos, Inc */
+
+.text
+.global riscv_hwprobe
+riscv_hwprobe:
+	# Put __NR_riscv_hwprobe in the syscall number register, then just shim
+	# back the kernel's return.  This doesn't do any sort of errno
+	# handling, the caller can deal with it.
+	li a7, 258
+	ecall
+	ret