linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] KVM: selftests: Add the sync

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6fbe22d3-b9a9-48c5-8227-743841332ae0@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 13:19:58 +0200
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        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 4/4] KVM: selftests: Add the sync_regs test for s390x

On 23/05/2019 12.56, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 01:12:53PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The test is an adaption of the same test for x86. Note that there
>> are some differences in the way how s390x deals with the kvm_valid_regs
>> in struct kvm_run, so some of the tests had to be removed. Also this
>> test is not using the ucall() interface on s390x yet (which would need
>> some work to be usable on s390x), so it simply drops out of the VM with
>> a diag 0x501 breakpoint instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   2 +
>>  .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c      | 151 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 154 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 514d1f88ee26..68f76ee9e821 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -8645,6 +8645,7 @@ F:	arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h
>>  F:	arch/s390/include/asm/kvm*
>>  F:	arch/s390/kvm/
>>  F:	arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
>> +F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/
>>  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/s390x/
> 
> Do we need these lines added? We have tools/testing/selftests/kvm/ in the
> common KVM section already. If we do want to specify them specifically,
> then I guess we need x86 and arm MAINTAINERS updates as well.

I think they are helpful in the sense that the s390x maintainers get
CC:-ed on related patches as well, and if I've got Christian right, he's
interested in getting informed here. For Arm related patches, I guess
you should ask the Arm maintainers first. For x86, it does not really
matter, since the maintainers are the same.

 Thomas