linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

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, 22 May 2019 10:44:09 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in
> >> from the beginning.
> > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet
> > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime?
> > 
> > Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or
> > UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to
> > architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/
> > and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the
> > ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64
> > is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall
> > on s390x more easily, I think.
> 
> Yes, that would work.  I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO
> on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it.

If the flexibility isn't necessary, then I agree that it'll be nicer to
put the ucall_init() in arch setup code, avoiding the need to remember
it in each unit test.

Thanks,
drew