linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/selftests/xsave: Introduce XSAVE tests

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:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:45:15 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/selftests/xsave: Introduce XSAVE tests

On 2/27/19 1:24 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> In the past there were some issues resulting from additions to
> XSAVE/XSAVES.  Introduce a few tests to help detect issues early.

Thanks for doing this!

I wonder, though, if you can spend a little more time on these.  They
look a little "raw".  They're virtually free of comments and there is no
explanation of what the tests do or why they do them.  I honestly forget
things like what XSAVE has to do with fork() failing, for instance.

I'd question why we need 5 different .c files.  It also seems like
things like set_ymm() could be trivially factored into a .h rather than
making 5 copies of them.

selftests don't need to be perfect, but I think these could use a _bit_
more polish before merging.