linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: AMD Nested SVM test infrastructure

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: <877e1lf2vi.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:46:57 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Cc:     thuth@...hat.com, drjones@...hat.com, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: AMD Nested SVM test infrastructure

Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com> writes:

> Hi Vitaly,
>
> On 1/20/20 11:53 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com> writes:
>> 

...

>>> +
>>> +static struct test tests[] = {
>>> +	/* name, supported, custom setup, l2 code, exit code, custom check, finished */
>>> +	{"vmmcall", NULL, NULL, l2_vmcall, SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL},
>>> +	{"vmrun", NULL, NULL, l2_vmrun, SVM_EXIT_VMRUN},
>>> +	{"CR3 read intercept", NULL, prepare_cr3_intercept, l2_cr3_read, SVM_EXIT_READ_CR3},
>>> +};
>> 
>> selftests are usualy not that well structured :-) E.g. we don't have
>> sub-tests and a way to specify which one to run so there is a single
>> flow when everything is being executed. I'd suggest to keep things as
>> simple as possibe (especially in the basic 'svm' test).
> In this case the differences between the tests is very tiny. One line on
> L2 and one line on L1 to check the exit status. I wondered whether it
> deserves to have separate test files for that. I did not intend to run
> the subtests separately nor to add many more subtests but rather saw all
> of them as a single basic test. More complex tests would be definitively
> separate.
>
> But if the consensus is to keep each tests separate, I will do.
>

No, I wasn't asking for that, it's just that the 'tests' array looks
like we're going to add more and more here (like we do in
kvm-unit-tests). If it's not the case you can probably simplify the code
by executing these three checks consequently without defining any
'sub-test' stuctures (like we do for other selftests). But I don't have
a strong opinion on this so we can keep things the way they are.

-- 
Vitaly