linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: add sev_migrate

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: <YhULZDZPQVsDHLPf@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:12:20 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: add sev_migrate_tests on machines
 without SEV-ES

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:09 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_SEV (1 << 1)
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_SEV_ES (1 << 3)
> 
> These conflict with these names but have different values:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h#L402.
> Is that normal in selftests or should we go with another name?

It's normal.  The kernel uses semi-arbitrary values that don't map directly to
CPUID.  I like Paolo's suggestion of pulling in KVM-Unit-Tests' approach for
dealing with CPUID features[*]; if/when that happens these definitions will become
less ad hoc.

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/16823e91-5caf-f52e-e0dc-28ebb9a87b47@redhat.com