linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] kvm: selftests: Add TEST

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: <e7bacea1-6964-aeb2-633e-371ad1231881@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 18:28:53 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, thuth@...hat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] kvm: selftests: Add TEST_FAIL macro

On 05/03/20 18:25, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> The following patch's commit message is self-explanatory about this proposal.
> 
> I adjusted to use TEST_FAIL only a few source files, in reality it will
> need to change all the ones listed below. I will proceed with the
> adjustments if this new macro idea is accepted.
> 
> $ find . -type f -name "*.c" -exec grep -l "TEST_ASSERT(false" {} \;
> ./lib/kvm_util.c
> ./lib/io.c
> ./lib/x86_64/processor.c
> ./lib/aarch64/ucall.c
> ./lib/aarch64/processor.c
> ./x86_64/vmx_dirty_log_test.c
> ./x86_64/state_test.c
> ./x86_64/vmx_tsc_adjust_test.c
> ./x86_64/svm_vmcall_test.c
> ./x86_64/evmcs_test.c
> ./x86_64/vmx_close_while_nested_test.c
> 
> Wainer dos Santos Moschetta (1):
>   kvm: selftests: Add TEST_FAIL macro
> 
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c             | 7 +++----
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/test_util.h          | 3 +++
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/cr4_cpuid_sync_test.c | 4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 

Yes, why not.

Paolo