linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 11/14] KVM: selftests: Introduce after_vcpu

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: <20200319163720.GB127076@xz-x1>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:37:20 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/14] KVM: selftests: Introduce after_vcpu_run hook
 for dirty log test

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:50:05AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >  static void generate_random_array(uint64_t *guest_array, uint64_t size)
> >  {
> >  	uint64_t i;
> > @@ -261,25 +282,23 @@ static void *vcpu_worker(void *data)
> >  	struct kvm_vm *vm = data;
> >  	uint64_t *guest_array;
> >  	uint64_t pages_count = 0;
> > -	struct kvm_run *run;
> > +	struct sigaction sigact;
> >  
> > -	run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
> > +	current_vm = vm;
> > +	vcpu_fd = vcpu_get_fd(vm, VCPU_ID);
> 
> You don't add this call until 13/14, which means bisection is broken.
> Please test the series with 'git rebase -i -x make'.

You're right... I do per-patch test but only for the initial version,
then I test the fixups as standalone changes for latter versions.
This must be a wrongly squashed fixup into the wrong patch.  Sorry.

I'll wait for some more time for another repost.  Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu