linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:24:35 +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>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the
 memop test

On 14/06/2022 12.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 5/31/22 12:15, 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.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index 49f26f544127..e704c6fa5758 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>   
> 
> [...]
> 
>>   int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>   {
>> -	int memop_cap, extension_cap;
>> +	int memop_cap, extension_cap, idx;
>>   
>>   	setbuf(stdout, NULL);	/* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
>>   
>> +	ksft_print_header();
>> +
>>   	memop_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
>>   	extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
>>   	if (!memop_cap) {
>> -		print_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported");
>> -		exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> +		ksft_exit_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported.\n");
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	test_copy();
>> -	if (extension_cap > 0) {
>> -		test_copy_key();
>> -		test_copy_key_storage_prot_override();
>> -		test_copy_key_fetch_prot();
>> -		test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override();
>> -		test_errors_key();
>> -		test_termination();
>> -		test_errors_key_storage_prot_override();
>> -		test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled();
>> -		test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled();
>> -	} else {
>> -		print_skip("storage key memop extension not supported");
>> +	ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(testlist));
>> +
>> +	for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>> +		if (testlist[idx].extension >= extension_cap) {
> 
> This is reversed, should be
> 
>     		if (testlist[idx].extension <= extension_cap) {
> or
> 		if (extension_cap >= testlist[idx].extension) {

Drat! The patch is already in Paolo's queue ... could you please send a 
patch to fix this, so that Paolo can either squash it (not sure whether 
that's still feasible) or queue it, too?

> I'd prefer the latter.

Me too.

  Thanks,
   Thomas