[Backport]: KVM 支持 SBI FWFT 扩展优化 Fwft

[uestc-gr]

fixed: #357

这一批补丁集中在 RISC-V KVM 的 SBI FWFT 扩展与 ONE_REG 接口支持，涵盖了功能修复、接口实现、自测增强以及特性管理。通过这些改动，KVM 在 RISC-V 平台上实现了更完善的 固件特性控制，提升了 用户态可控性、测试覆盖率 和 性能优化。

使用内核测试工具get-reg-list进行测试，测试结果如下

/home # ./get-reg-list --config=sbi-fwft_misaligned_deleg
sbi-fwft_misaligned_deleg: PASS
/home # ./get-reg-list --config=smnpm+sbi-fwft_pointer_masking
smnpm+sbi-fwft_pointer_masking: PASS

[github-actions]

---

开始测试 log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379

参数解析结果

args	value
repository	RVCK-Project/rvck
head ref	pull/380/head
base ref	rvck-6.6
LAVA repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
LAVA hardware	['qemu']
LAVA Testcase path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
need run job	kunit-test,kernel-build,check-patch,lava-trigger

---

测试完成

详细结果:

check	result
kunit-test	success
kernel-build	failure
check-patch	success
lava-trigger-qemu	skipped
lava-trigger-sg2042	skipped
lava-trigger-k1	skipped
lava-trigger-lpi4a	skipped

Kunit Test Result

[07:49:47] Testing complete. Ran 482 tests: passed: 465, skipped: 17

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/1/#summary-98787463100

Kernel Build Result

• Kernel build failed.

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/1/#summary-98787463166

Check Patch Result

Total Errors	0
Total Warnings	48

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/1/#summary-98787463092

测试完成

详细结果:

check	result
kunit-test	success
kernel-build	success
check-patch	success
lava-trigger-qemu	success
lava-trigger-sg2042	skipped
lava-trigger-k1	skipped
lava-trigger-lpi4a	skipped

Kunit Test Result

[07:49:47] Testing complete. Ran 482 tests: passed: 465, skipped: 17

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/1/#summary-98787463100

Kernel Build Result

• Kernel build succeeded: RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33152471379_2/

• 22a022aa36a18ba19352505ce1b025cc /srv/guix_result/5419c682aeec924942fd904b3d0cdb11381fbe13/Image

• e56d2028759f58d4aa1ebb0585811fea /root/initramfs.img

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/2/#summary-98790059696

Check Patch Result

Total Errors	0
Total Warnings	48

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/1/#summary-98787463092

LAVA Check (qemu)

args	value
testcase_repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
lava_template	lava-job-template/qemu/qemu-ltp.yaml
testcase_path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
kernel_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33152471379_2/Image
initramfs_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33152471379_2/initramfs.img
rootfs_download_url	https://fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn/openeuler-sig-riscv/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/openEuler24.03-LTS-SP1/openeuler-rootfs.img.zst
testcase_ref	main
testitem_name	RVCK-Project_rvck_pull_request_target_380__common-test_qemu

result: Lava check done!

• lava log: https://lava.oerv.ac.cn/scheduler/job/3704

• lava result count: [pass]: 10

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33152471379/attempts/2/#summary-98795477595

[unicornx]

1st review:

72528cc selftests: KVM: riscv: get-reg-list: Add missing ISA extension names to the lookup table

• commit 的标题不符合 upsteram 的习惯，查看对 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 的修改的补丁一般标题前缀是："KVM: riscv: selftests:"
• 请研究一下是否可以 backport "b26e70d72d12 KVM: riscv: selftests: Use register subtypes" 这个上游补丁？进而将 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 进一步和上游的改进保持一致（统一到 isa_ext_single_id_to_str 中），否则针对 isa_ext_id_to_str 这个函数，以后差别越来越大。进一步地，是否可以将主线上从 6a53a5f 往上直到 b26e70d 的补丁都拿过来，我粗略看了一下，都是局限于 get-reg-list.c 的并且涉及该文件测试的一些通用代码框架优化的，是否可以尽量拿过来，这样 rvck 的 get-reg-list.c 的代码和主线的代码的区别将只是在扩展支持的差别上，而不会出现一些框架代码的区别。

e973e89 RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Treat SBI ext regs like ISA ext regs

[Some parts of the previous patch were inadvertently missed. Fix them in this patch.]

你的意思是说 “之前的补丁中有些部分被意外遗漏了。本次补丁修复了这些问题。”？我理解这个描述是错误的，我检查了一下，你这次 backport 这个补丁中不是补充了遗漏的补丁，而是放弃了一些以前补丁中提前合入的部分。 譬如：tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h 中的

+	int feature_type;

以及 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 中的

+enum {
+	VCPU_FEATURE_ISA_EXT = 0,
+	VCPU_FEATURE_SBI_EXT,
+};

和

@@ -593,16 +630,6 @@ static __u64 base_regs[] = {
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER_REG(time),
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER_REG(compare),
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER_REG(state),
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_V01,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_TIME,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_IPI,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_RFENCE,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_SRST,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_HSM,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_PMU,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_EXPERIMENTAL,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_VENDOR,
-	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_DBCN,
 };
 
 /*
@@ -613,6 +640,17 @@ static __u64 base_skips_set[] = {
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER | KVM_REG_RISCV_TIMER_REG(state),
 };
 
+static __u64 sbi_base_regs[] = {
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_V01,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_TIME,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_IPI,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_RFENCE,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_SRST,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_HSM,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_EXPERIMENTAL,
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_VENDOR,
+};
+
 static __u64 zicbom_regs[] = {
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_CONFIG | KVM_REG_RISCV_CONFIG_REG(zicbom_block_size),
 	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM,
@@ -716,6 +754,9 @@ static __u64 fp_d_regs[] = {
 #define SUBLIST_BASE \
 	{"base", .regs = base_regs, .regs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(base_regs), \
 	 .skips_set = base_skips_set, .skips_set_n = ARRAY_SIZE(base_skips_set),}
+#define SUBLIST_SBI_BASE \
+	{"sbi-base", .feature_type = VCPU_FEATURE_SBI_EXT, .feature = KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_V01, \
+	 .regs = sbi_base_regs, .regs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(sbi_base_regs),}
 #define SUBLIST_ZICBOM \
 	{"zicbom", .feature = KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM, .regs = zicbom_regs, .regs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(zicbom_regs),}
 #define SUBLIST_ZICBOZ \
@@ -750,6 +791,26 @@ static struct vcpu_reg_list config_##ext = {			\
 	},							\
 }								\
 
+#define KVM_SBI_EXT_SIMPLE_CONFIG(ext, extu)			\
+static __u64 regs_sbi_##ext[] = {				\
+	KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG |			\
+	KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE |	\
+	KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_##extu,				\
+};								\
+static struct vcpu_reg_list config_sbi_##ext = {		\
+	.sublists = {						\
+		SUBLIST_BASE,					\
+		{						\
+			.name = "sbi-"#ext,			\
+			.feature_type = VCPU_FEATURE_SBI_EXT,	\
+			.feature = KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_##extu,	\
+			.regs = regs_sbi_##ext,			\
+			.regs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(regs_sbi_##ext),	\
+		},						\
+		{0},						\
+	},							\
+}								\
+
 #define KVM_ISA_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(ext, extu)			\
 static struct vcpu_reg_list config_##ext = {			\
 	.sublists = {						\
@@ -759,8 +820,21 @@ static struct vcpu_reg_list config_##ext = {			\
 	},							\
 }								\
 
+#define KVM_SBI_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(ext, extu)			\
+static struct vcpu_reg_list config_sbi_##ext = {		\
+	.sublists = {						\
+		SUBLIST_BASE,					\
+		SUBLIST_SBI_##extu,				\
+		{0},						\
+	},							\
+}								\
+
 /* Note: The below list is alphabetically sorted. */
 
+KVM_SBI_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(base, BASE);
+KVM_SBI_EXT_SIMPLE_CONFIG(pmu, PMU);
+KVM_SBI_EXT_SIMPLE_CONFIG(dbcn, DBCN);
+
 KVM_ISA_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(aia, AIA);
 KVM_ISA_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(fp_f, FP_F);
 KVM_ISA_EXT_SUBLIST_CONFIG(fp_d, FP_D);
@@ -783,6 +857,9 @@ KVM_ISA_EXT_SIMPLE_CONFIG(zihintpause, ZIHINTPAUSE);
 KVM_ISA_EXT_SIMPLE_CONFIG(zihpm, ZIHPM);
 
 struct vcpu_reg_list *vcpu_configs[] = {
+	&config_sbi_base,
+	&config_sbi_pmu,
+	&config_sbi_dbcn,
 	&config_aia,
 	&config_fp_f,
 	&config_fp_d,

这些你这次没有合入，原因是在 rvck 中合入 "RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Add get-reg-list test for STA registers" 这个补丁时，人为改动了上游的补丁，提前合入这部分内容。

另外，tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 中的下面这部分没有合入

@@ -53,6 +58,21 @@ bool filter_reg(__u64 reg)
 	case KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIFENCEI:
 	case KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE:
 	case KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHPM:
+	/*
+	 * Like ISA_EXT registers, SBI_EXT registers are only visible when the
+	 * host supports them and disabling them does not affect the visibility
+	 * of the SBI_EXT register itself.
+	 */
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_V01:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_TIME:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_IPI:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_RFENCE:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_SRST:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_HSM:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_PMU:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_DBCN:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_EXPERIMENTAL:
+	case KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_VENDOR:
 		return true;
 	/* AIA registers are always available when Ssaia can't be disabled */
 	case KVM_REG_RISCV_CSR | KVM_REG_RISCV_CSR_AIA | KVM_REG_RISCV_CSR_AIA_REG(siselect):

我查了一下，发现是在 rvck 中合入 "KVM: riscv: selftests: Add Sscofpmf to get-reg-list test" 这个补丁时，人为改动了上游的补丁，提前合入这部分。

请修改补丁中的描述，最好将我上面列出的那些提前合入的补丁的 title 也记录一下。不用记录它们的 commit hashcode，因为 rvck-6.6 分支每个月会做 rebase，所有 commit 的 hashcode 都会变，但 title 不变。

BTW：还是要强调一下以后 backport 时除非因为 6.6 的 rvck 不支持更新的补丁的代码需要做 fix 外，不能私自 pick 上游补丁代码，否则就会造成目前我们看到的这种状态，增加维护困难。

72500d3 KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function

[Due to differences in the surrounding context, adapt the patch accordingly.]

"differences in the surrounding context", 这个具体是什么意思？我认为这个描述也是不准确的。我研究了一下，感觉是如下原因。

rvck 在今年 2 月初通过 PR 218 backport 过一个同名的补丁 "KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function"。但合入的不全，原上游补丁中 get-reg-list.c 中对 vcpu_has_ext 的清理和替换没有合入 (具体原因未知)，而你这次对 get-reg-list.c 的改动相当于是补齐了上次 backport 的同名补丁。

所以为了避免 rvck-6.6 中出现同名的两个 commit （RVCK 无法通过 commit hashcode 唯一区分 patch，只能通过 title，具体原因上面解释过了），这次的 commit 应该是对上次的 backport 的一次 bugfix，而非 backport 以及 adapt。我建议这次这个补丁的 title 和 commit message 应该写成下面这样：

    KVM: riscv: selftests: complete backport for change vcpu_has_ext
    
    mainline inclusion
    category: bugfix
    bugzilla: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/issues/357
    
    --------------------------------

    When backporting "KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function,"
    via [PR 218][1], the merge was incomplete; the cleanup and replacement of
    `vcpu_has_ext` in `get-reg-list.c` from the original upstream patch were not merged.
    
    This patch completes the patch.
    
    [1[: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/pull/218 link
    
    Fixes: backport: ("KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function")
    Signed-off-by: Gao Rui <gao.rui@zte.com.cn>

675f6d7 KVM: selftests: Allow tagging protected memory in guest page tables

为何要引入这个补丁，看上去这个补丁当时上游引入是为了 x86_64, 但连带改动了 common 的代码导致多个 ARCH 需要配合适配，而在 riscv（包括除了 x86_64 之外的其他 ARCH） 侧其实并无实质作用。请再评估一下 backport 它的原因。目前 rvck 的新的要求是要考虑对多架构的影响（主要是 x86_64 和 aarch64），所以此类补丁的引入需要慎重。

d760463 KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param

[Some adaptations were made in this patch to account for differences in the code context.]

“account for differences in the code context” 这种表述太模糊了，对阅读补丁的人益处不大。我看了一下发现之所以原补丁中有些部分没有合入，其原因就是因为 6.13 和 6.6 之间的差距导致原补丁中有些文件（tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/no-vgic-v3.c、tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c、tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c）或者函数 (host_test_system_off2) 在 6.6 基线中还不存在，所以对这些文件的相关改动无法合入，而且从 rvck 的角度来说也没有必要将这些文件补齐。请修改 commit message，直接说明 backport 中不合入的原因即可。

这个补丁涉及多 ARCH，但感觉修改了一个函数接口，没有逻辑上的修改，所以我理解合入非 riscv ARCH 部分是没有问题的，而且局限在 tools/testing/selftests/kvm，不影响内核本身

[unicornx]

72500d3 KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function

[Due to differences in the surrounding context, adapt the patch accordingly.]

"differences in the surrounding context", 这个具体是什么意思？我认为这个描述也是不准确的。我研究了一下，感觉是如下原因。

rvck 在今年 2 月初通过 PR 218 backport 过一个同名的补丁 "KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function"。但合入的不全，原上游补丁中 get-reg-list.c 中对 vcpu_has_ext 的清理和替换没有合入 (具体原因未知)，而你这次对 get-reg-list.c 的改动相当于是补齐了上次 backport 的同名补丁。

所以为了避免 rvck-6.6 中出现同名的两个 commit （RVCK 无法通过 commit hashcode 唯一区分 patch，只能通过 title，具体原因上面解释过了），这次的 commit 应该是对上次的 backport 的一次 bugfix，而非 backport 以及 adapt。我建议这次这个补丁的 title 和 commit message 应该写成下面这样：

    KVM: riscv: selftests: complete backport for change vcpu_has_ext
    
    mainline inclusion
    category: bugfix
    bugzilla: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/issues/357
    
    --------------------------------

    When backporting "KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function,"
    via [PR 218][1], the merge was incomplete; the cleanup and replacement of
    `vcpu_has_ext` in `get-reg-list.c` from the original upstream patch were not merged.
    
    This patch completes the patch.
    
    [1[: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/pull/218 link
    
    Fixes: backport: ("KVM: riscv: selftests: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function")
    Signed-off-by: Gao Rui <gao.rui@zte.com.cn>

针对这条 comment 补充一下：我发现该补丁中针对 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h 的修改是多余的，即下面这个：

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
index 366a560b6469..932bbcbdbd87 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ static inline bool __vcpu_has_sbi_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t sbi_ext)
 	return __vcpu_has_ext(vcpu, RISCV_SBI_EXT_REG(sbi_ext));
 }
 
+bool __vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t ext);
+
 struct ex_regs {
 	unsigned long ra;
 	unsigned long sp;

这部分应该不 backport，否则导致 patch 后 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h 中存在两处对 __vcpu_has_ext 函数的重复声明。请再检查一下。

[github-actions]

---

开始测试 log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041

参数解析结果

args	value
repository	RVCK-Project/rvck
head ref	pull/380/head
base ref	rvck-6.6
LAVA repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
LAVA hardware	['qemu']
LAVA Testcase path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
need run job	kunit-test,kernel-build,check-patch,lava-trigger

---

测试完成

详细结果:

check	result
kunit-test	success
kernel-build	success
check-patch	failure
lava-trigger-qemu	success
lava-trigger-sg2042	skipped
lava-trigger-k1	skipped
lava-trigger-lpi4a	skipped

Kunit Test Result

[13:24:10] Testing complete. Ran 482 tests: passed: 465, skipped: 17

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100262752717

Kernel Build Result

• Kernel build succeeded: RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/

• 991620dc4eb5081ffb92415a429e477e /srv/guix_result/93dec650cc101e5818650f24f4d1e48014b0154b/Image

• 04c0fd779832a3e8a4c63f4f4cce2412 /root/initramfs.img

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100262752482

Check Patch Result

Total Errors	1
Total Warnings	87

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100262752698

LAVA Check (qemu)

args	value
testcase_repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
lava_template	lava-job-template/qemu/qemu-ltp.yaml
testcase_path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
kernel_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/Image
initramfs_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/initramfs.img
rootfs_download_url	https://fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn/openeuler-sig-riscv/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/openEuler24.03-LTS-SP1/openeuler-rootfs.img.zst
testcase_ref	main
testitem_name	RVCK-Project_rvck_pull_request_target_380__common-test_qemu

result: Lava check done!

• lava log: https://lava.oerv.ac.cn/scheduler/job/3731

• lava result count: [pass]: 10

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100271819540

测试完成

详细结果:

check	result
kunit-test	success
kernel-build	success
check-patch	failure
lava-trigger-qemu	success
lava-trigger-sg2042	skipped
lava-trigger-k1	skipped
lava-trigger-lpi4a	skipped

Kunit Test Result

[13:24:10] Testing complete. Ran 482 tests: passed: 465, skipped: 17

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100262752717

Kernel Build Result

• Kernel build succeeded: RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/

• 991620dc4eb5081ffb92415a429e477e /srv/guix_result/93dec650cc101e5818650f24f4d1e48014b0154b/Image

• 04c0fd779832a3e8a4c63f4f4cce2412 /root/initramfs.img

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100262752482

Check Patch Result

Total Errors	1
Total Warnings	87

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/2/#summary-100279651457

LAVA Check (qemu)

args	value
testcase_repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
lava_template	lava-job-template/qemu/qemu-ltp.yaml
testcase_path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
kernel_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/Image
initramfs_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33634758041_1/initramfs.img
rootfs_download_url	https://fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn/openeuler-sig-riscv/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/openEuler24.03-LTS-SP1/openeuler-rootfs.img.zst
testcase_ref	main
testitem_name	RVCK-Project_rvck_pull_request_target_380__common-test_qemu

result: Lava check done!

• lava log: https://lava.oerv.ac.cn/scheduler/job/3731

• lava result count: [pass]: 10

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33634758041/attempts/1/#summary-100271819540

[github-actions]

---

开始测试 log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33641401737

参数解析结果

args	value
repository	RVCK-Project/rvck
head ref	pull/380/head
base ref	rvck-6.6
LAVA repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
LAVA hardware	['qemu']
LAVA Testcase path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
need run job	kunit-test,kernel-build,check-patch,lava-trigger

---

测试完成

详细结果:

check	result
kunit-test	success
kernel-build	success
check-patch	success
lava-trigger-qemu	success
lava-trigger-sg2042	skipped
lava-trigger-k1	skipped
lava-trigger-lpi4a	skipped

Kunit Test Result

[14:24:51] Testing complete. Ran 482 tests: passed: 465, skipped: 17

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33641401737/attempts/1/#summary-100285152241

Kernel Build Result

• Kernel build succeeded: RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33641401737_1/

• 4459bb4a146eb89a4407dff8b5cf36c6 /srv/guix_result/da85bc02214ed1671a344c2f722bc796fcbd9a1f/Image

• 04c0fd779832a3e8a4c63f4f4cce2412 /root/initramfs.img

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33641401737/attempts/1/#summary-100285152324

Check Patch Result

Total Errors	0
Total Warnings	87

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33641401737/attempts/1/#summary-100285152388

LAVA Check (qemu)

args	value
testcase_repo	RVCK-Project/lavaci
lava_template	lava-job-template/qemu/qemu-ltp.yaml
testcase_path	lava-testcases/common-test/ltp/ltp.yaml
kernel_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33641401737_1/Image
initramfs_download_url	http://10.30.190.110/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/OERV-RVCI/RVCK-Project/rvck/380_33641401737_1/initramfs.img
rootfs_download_url	https://fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn/openeuler-sig-riscv/openEuler-RISC-V/RVCK/openEuler24.03-LTS-SP1/openeuler-rootfs.img.zst
testcase_ref	main
testitem_name	RVCK-Project_rvck_pull_request_target_380__common-test_qemu

result: Lava check done!

• lava log: https://lava.oerv.ac.cn/scheduler/job/3732

• lava result count: [pass]: 10

• detail log: https://github.com/RVCK-Project/rvck/actions/runs/33641401737/attempts/1/#summary-100295314376

[unicornx]

2nd review:

针对 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 和上游对齐的改动

我看你第二版改动中增加了很多补丁，主要目的应该是将 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 和上游尽可能对齐。存在下面几个问题，建议在 pr 中修改一下。

• 在 github 的 PR 中补充一下这个改动的说明，同时说一下，目前这个文件对齐到上游的哪个 commit，我看了一下，应该是 “64e50ab0ed84 KVM: riscv: selftests: Split SBI FWFT into separate feature-specific sublists”，请 double-check。

• 摘取补丁时请尽量将和这个文件相关的补丁放在一起，并且按照上游合入的顺序 pick。我看你现在对该文件的补丁和其他修改的补丁有一定程度的混杂，另外还有几个补丁的顺序也和上游的补丁不一样，请尽量调整一下，方便以后维护，特别是以后采用 git log --oneline tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c 命令查看时和上游的顺序方便比较。

  特别地，有关顺序，我看到以下几个补丁的顺序和上游顺序有差别，列出来方便你再查看一下

  • 4ffd2fa KVM: riscv: selftests: Add vector extension tests
  • 96178e9 KVM: riscv: selftests: Add SBI FWFT to get-reg-list test
  • ea3b0ed RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Add Zalasr extensions to get-reg-list test
  • 9542401 KVM: riscv: selftests: Add Zcmop extension to get-reg-list test

• 为何漏掉了 “d1c5620781d5 KVM: riscv: selftests: Add SBI MPXY extension to get-reg-list”，是否可以补上？

• 对于另外一个没有 pick 的 “26f8453288d4 KVM: selftests: Use u64 instead of uint64_t” 我理解你没有 pick 是因为涉及 multi-arch 文件改动较多且没有实质性功能修改，所以你没有 pick，是这样吗？如果确认，请同样在 github 的 PR 中补充说明一下不 pick 的原因，以备忘。

• 另外，对 get-reg-list.c，我拿 380 改动后的版本和主线截至 64e50ab 的版本比了一下，除了漏掉的 MPXY 部分，u64 替换 uint64_t，以及一些代码行颠倒顺序（可能是 pick 顺序错乱导致，但没有坏影响）之外，我发现有个错误需要改正一下。具体是 sbi_base_regs 中相比主线多了一行 KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_EXT | KVM_REG_RISCV_SBI_SINGLE | KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_DBCN,，我定位了一下，感觉是早先 backport “RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Add get-reg-list test for STA registers” 这个补丁时引入的一个 bug。而这个 DBCN 在上游的 "bdf6aa328f13 RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Treat SBI ext regs like ISA ext regs" 中引入 sbi_base_regs 时实际上是移除了，而这次你 backport bdf6aa3 这个补丁时因为考虑到前期 backport 的冲突完整舍弃了 上游 bdf6aa3 的相关内容导致这个问题，我建议你在 backport bdf6aa3 时 fix 这个问题，并在 commit message 中强调说明一下。Anyway，过去 backport 这个文件改动时的确有些乱，辛苦你了。

• 我建议在对齐 get-reg-list.c 补丁的基础上，将我上面拿 380 改动后的版本和主线截至 64e50ab 的版本比对中发现的一些涉及代码行颠倒顺序的问题单独提一个 patch fix 一下。这样以后再 backport 这个文件时会好看很多，现在会看到由于这些乱序导致的 diff 中的难看的问题。

330f434 KVM: riscv: selftests: Add senvcfg register to get-reg-list test

应该是 v6.7-rc1 进的主线，不是 from Linux 6.6-rc6，再说 rvck 目前本身也是基于 6.6.x 的，如果是 6.6-rc6，那就不存在 backport 了

3eae978 KVM: riscv: selftests: Use register subtypes

这个为啥放在签名区？我建议放在 “------” 之前和 backport 说明在一起比较好，从 upstream backport 来的 commit 的 SOB 区我建议除了在最后 append 自己的 SOB 外，其他部分就不要动了吧。

这个问题在其他 patch 中也存在，能否一起改一下？

ea3b0ed RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Add Zalasr extensions to get-reg-list test

commit message 中缺少 backport 的声明部分，即 “----” 上面的内容。

[unicornx]

@fangyu0809 这个改动涉及的部分我看你们以前也改动过，请一起 review 一下，谢谢

[unicornx]

@uestc-gr 貌似 rvck-6.6 分支升级了，请下次修改时记得 rebase 一下。