linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Fix feature detection

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: <664cf142449b0a1ef7f09d04111f96ff84738e28.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:22:57 -0700
From:   Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "babu.moger@....com" <babu.moger@....com>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Fix feature detection

Hi Reinette,

On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 11:06 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Sai,
> 
> On 3/9/2020 3:51 PM, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:34 PM
> > 
> > [SNIP]
> > 
> > > > That's a good point and makes sense to me. I think we could fix it in
> > > > two ways 1. grep for strings in dmesg but that will still leave
> > > > ambiguity in deciding b/w mbm and cqm because kernel prints "resctrl:
> > > > L3
> > > monitoring detected" for both the features 2. Check in "info" directory
> > > > 	a. For cat_l3, we could search for info/L3
> > > > 	b. For mba, we could search for info/MB
> > > > 	c. For cqm and mbm, we could search for specified string in
> > > > info/L3_MON/mon_features
> > > > 
> > > > I think option 2 might be better because it can handle all cases,
> > > > please let me
> > > know what you think.
> > > 
> > > I agree. For the reasons you mention and also that (1) may not be
> > > possible if the
> > > loglevel prevents those lines from being printed.
> > 
> > Makes sense. I will work on the fix.
> 
> One more note about this ... from what I can tell the test for a feature
> currently fails if the platform does not support the feature. Would it
> be possible to just skip the test in this case instead?

That's because the output of the test should be just "ok" or "not ok".

I can change it to something like "# Skip <test_name> because platform doesn't
support the feature", but not really sure if it complies with TAP 13 protocol.

Regards,
Sai