linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: selftests: Rename 'msr->availble' to 'msr->should_not_gp' in hyperv

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: <Yx87WXMXGzLxrT0f@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:59:53 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: selftests: Rename 'msr->availble' to
 'msr->should_not_gp' in hyperv_features test

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It may not be clear what 'msr->availble' means. The test actually
> checks that accessing the particular MSR doesn't cause #GP, rename
> the varialble accordingly.
> 
> Suggested-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c    | 92 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c
> index 79ab0152d281..4ec4776662a4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static inline uint8_t hypercall(u64 control, vm_vaddr_t input_address,
>  
>  struct msr_data {
>  	uint32_t idx;
> -	bool available;
> +	bool should_not_gp;

I agree that "available" is a bit inscrutable, but "should_not_gp" is also odd.

What about inverting it to?

	bool gp_expected;

or maybe even just

	bool fault_expected;

and letting the assert define which vector is expected.