linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the memop test

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <07903c7d-5afc-ce95-0f51-3c643eab8b37@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:40:43 +0200
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the memop
 test

On 14/04/2022 14.48, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 4/14/22 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
>> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
>> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
>> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
>> via the kselftests.h interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index b04c2c1b3c30..a2783d9afcac 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>   
>>   #include "test_util.h"
>>   #include "kvm_util.h"
>> +#include "kselftest.h"
>>   
>>   enum mop_target {
>>   	LOGICAL,
>> @@ -648,33 +649,88 @@ static void test_errors(void)
>>   	kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
>>   }
>>   
>> +struct testdef {
>> +	const char *name;
>> +	void (*test)(void);
>> +	bool needs_extension;
> 
> Please make this numeric. You could also rename it to required_extension or similar.
[...]
>> +
>> +	for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>> +		if (!testlist[idx].needs_extension || extension_cap) {
> 
> Then check here that extension_cap >= the required extension.
> This way the test can easily be adapted in case of future extensions.

Not sure whether a ">=" will really be safe, since a future extension does 
not necessarily assert that previous extensions are available at the same time.

But I can still turn the bool into a numeric to make it a little bit more 
flexible for future use.

  Thomas