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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200414061654.qhuo3hsslz32qwgc@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 08:16:54 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 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 Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 01:45:09PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes, that would be my preference as well. Eventually I decided it could be
done later, but I still prefer it being done from the beginning.

Thanks,
drew