linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] vfio error recovery: kernel support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:53:44 +0800
From:   Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>, <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] vfio error recovery: kernel support



On 04/06/2017 06:36 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 04:19:10PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:50:22 +0300
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:38:22PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>> The previous intention of trying to handle all sorts of AER faults
>>>> clearly had more value, though even there the implementation and
>>>> configuration requirements restricted the practicality.  For instance
>>>> is AER support actually useful to a customer if it requires all ports
>>>> of a multifunction device assigned to the VM?  This seems more like a
>>>> feature targeting whole system partitioning rather than general VM
>>>> device assignment use cases.  Maybe that's ok, but it should be a clear
>>>> design decision.  
>>>
>>> Alex, what kind of testing do you expect to be necessary?
>>> Would you say testing on real hardware and making it trigger
>>> AER errors is a requirement?
>>
>> Testing various fatal, non-fatal, and corrected errors with aer-inject,
>> especially in multfunction configurations (where more than one port
>> is actually usable) would certainly be required.  If we have cases where
>> the driver for a companion function can escalate a non-fatal error to a
>> bus reset, that should be tested, even if it requires temporary hacks to
>> the host driver for the companion function to trigger that case.  AER
>> handling is not something that the typical user is going to experience,
>> so it should to be thoroughly tested to make sure it works when needed
>> or there's little point to doing it at all.  Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
> 
> Some things can be tested within a VM. What would you
> say would be sufficient on a VM and what has to be
> tested on bare metal?
> 

Does the "bare metal" here mean something like XenServer?
-- 
Sincerely,
Cao jin