linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:44:26 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:56:18AM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> 
> On 4/2/20 6:00 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:43:10PM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> > > This patch introduces the mem_slot_test test which checks
> > > an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined in
> > > KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to
> > > verify it fails as expected.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore      |  1 +
> > >   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile        |  3 +
> > >   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   3 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
> > >   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c
> > > 
> > BTW, in kvm/queue we also now have
> > 
> > x86_64/set_memory_region_test.c
> > 
> > I wonder if we shouldn't try to make x86_64/set_memory_region_test.c
> > arch-neutral and then integrate this new test with it.
> 
> When I started work on this test I called it "add_max_mem_slots" but then I
> realized it could be rather a suite for other tests, so it was renamed. So
> yes, I think we can try to merge those memory region tests altogether.
> 
> I'm about to send a v2 where I address all your comments and hopefully we
> can use as the base for such as integration. Makes sense?

OK, but there's no rush (at least for me) for v2. If you want to look at
integration for v2 and send it later, then I'm fine with waiting.

Thanks,
drew
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Wainer
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > drew
>