[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+EHjTzO5Tsns4c6-7qXsyRtyGRwf4Yf_rBAPaVF303R1ih3EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:10:47 +0100
From: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 049/101] KVM: selftests: Fix kvm_check_cap() assertion
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 4:21 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > From: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit d8ac05ea13d789d5491a5920d70a05659015441d ]
> >
> > KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION ioctl can return any negative value on error,
> > and not necessarily -1. Change the assertion to reflect that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
>
> This is userland code, right?
>
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ int kvm_check_cap(long cap)
> > exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> >
> > ret = ioctl(kvm_fd, KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION, cap);
> > - TEST_ASSERT(ret != -1, "KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION IOCTL failed,\n"
> > + TEST_ASSERT(ret >= 0, "KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION IOCTL failed,\n"
> > " rc: %i errno: %i", ret, errno);
There's at least one case that I am aware of that potentially would
return a value other than -1 on error, which is a check for
KVM_CAP_MSI_DEVID (-EINVAL, -22):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c#L229
Also, considering that this is test code, it might be good to have the
check be as strict as possible.
Cheers,
/fuad
> And syscalls return -1 on error in userland, not anything else. So
> this should not be needed.
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Powered by blists - more mailing lists