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  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 14:19:27 -0800
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <>
To:     Dave Hansen <>,,, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Shuah Khan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/selftests/xsave: Introduce XSAVE tests

On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 13:45 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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 will add comments of what problems each test detects.

> 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.

Each C file contains only one single test and can be built with one command,
e.g. "gcc xsave_check_exec.c", or as part of the whole selftest.

I am hoping that, should any test fail, one can easily modify the test to find
out why.

Yes, I will move set_ymm() to a header file.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists