linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] selftests: kvm: Introduce the 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:45:09 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, drjones@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, krish.sadhukhan@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] selftests: kvm: Introduce the mem_slot_test test

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 07:09:03PM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> This series introduces a new KVM selftest (mem_slot_test) that goal
> is to verify memory slots can be added up to the maximum allowed. An
> extra slot is attempted which should occur on error.
> 
> The patch 01 is needed so that the VM fd can be accessed from the
> test code (for the ioctl call attempting to add an extra slot).
> 
> I ran the test successfully on x86_64, aarch64, and s390x.  This
> is why it is enabled to build on those arches.

Any objection to folding these patches into a series I have to clean up
set_memory_region_test (which was mentioned in a prior version) and add
this as a testcase to set_memory_region_test instead of creating a whole
new test?

A large chunk of set_memory_region_test will still be x86_64 only, but
having the test reside in common code will hopefully make it easier to
extend to other architectures.