linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the tprot 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <267dc999-edc6-c8fc-b177-e06fb2d259b4@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:38:12 +0200
From:   Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.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>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the
 tprot test

On 4/19/22 20:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
> The tprot 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/tprot.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
> index c097b9db495e..baba883d7a6d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c

We're not committing ourselves to any particular test output, are we?
Your patch considers the stages used for test setup tests themselves,
which I'm fine with, but would not want to commit to keeping that way forever.

[...]

> +#define HOST_SYNC(vmp, stage)			\
> +{						\
> +	HOST_SYNC_NO_TAP(vmp, stage);		\
> +	ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n");	\
> +}
> +

It should not be a problem, but is there any reason you're not using
do { ... } while(0) or ({ ... }) instead of just braces?

[...]