linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] KVM: selftests: add SEV boot tests

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: <56689a97-79bf-9669-3c78-1704a98ec445@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:55:06 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@...gle.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@...cle.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] KVM: selftests: add SEV boot tests

On 12/21/21 16:40, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Probably, you want to use macros to represent those states which should
>> make it more clear. Otherwise, it is quite cumbersome for readers to
>> remember the meaning (or state) of 100/101/102.
> I agree with that approach in general, but in this case it's a bit
> awkward since, these aren't necessarily similarly grouped tests where each
> test falls under a certain category of TEST_GROUP_x where a macro would
> provide additional information about the nature of the tests related to a
> particular SYNC() call, in some cases it's an aggregate of multiple
> things, for instance...

Indeed, these are just numbers that match between guest_test_common and 
test_common.  It's not too hard to follow if you look at the two 
functions side-by-side.

Paolo