linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: selftests: Test invalid bits in kvm_valid_regs and kvm_dirty

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]

Message-ID: <ca031254-adff-b321-0aa7-385ae3332898@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:06:34 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: selftests: Test invalid bits in
 kvm_valid_regs and kvm_dirty_regs on s390x

On 04.09.19 10:52, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Now that we disallow invalid bits in kvm_valid_regs and kvm_dirty_regs
> on s390x, too, we should also check this condition in the selftests.
> The code has been taken from the x86-version of the sync_regs_test.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c      | 30 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
> index bbc93094519b..d5290b4ad636 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,36 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  
>  	run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
>  
> +	/* Request reading invalid register set from VCPU. */
> +	run->kvm_valid_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD;
> +	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv < 0 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "Invalid kvm_valid_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n",
> +		    rv);
> +	vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID)->kvm_valid_regs = 0;
> +
> +	run->kvm_valid_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD | TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
> +	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv < 0 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "Invalid kvm_valid_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n",
> +		    rv);
> +	vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID)->kvm_valid_regs = 0;
> +
> +	/* Request setting invalid register set into VCPU. */
> +	run->kvm_dirty_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD;
> +	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv < 0 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "Invalid kvm_dirty_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n",
> +		    rv);
> +	vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID)->kvm_dirty_regs = 0;
> +
> +	run->kvm_dirty_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD | TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
> +	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv < 0 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "Invalid kvm_dirty_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n",
> +		    rv);
> +	vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID)->kvm_dirty_regs = 0;
> +
>  	/* Request and verify all valid register sets. */
>  	run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
>  	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
> 

Looks sane to me.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb