linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: x86: Use kernel x86 cpuid utilities in KVM selftests

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: <16823e91-5caf-f52e-e0dc-28ebb9a87b47@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 18:50:41 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: x86: Use kernel x86 cpuid utilities in KVM
 selftests

On 29/06/21 19:28, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> Thanks. I was thinking about kvm-unit-tests, but the issue is that it
>> would also be a copy. And just like with kernel headers, it would be
>> ideal to keep them in-sync. The advantage of the kernel headers is that
>> it's much easier to check and fix diffs with them. On the other hand, as
>> you say, there would not be any #ifdef stuff with kvm=unit-tests. Please
>> let me know what you think.
>
> I think the kvm-unit-tests implementation is superior to the kernel
> implementation, but that's probably because I suggested it. Still, I
> think there's an argument to be made that selftests, unlike
> kvm-unit-tests, are part of the kernel distribution and should be
> consistent with the kernel where possible.
> 
> Paolo?

I also prefer the kvm-unit-tests implementation, for what it's worth... 
Let's see what the code looks like?

Paolo