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: <874jxbr47d.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:52:54 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:

> 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.
>

I think Max suggested it to reduce the code churn and I silently agreed.

> What about inverting it to?
>
> 	bool gp_expected;
>
> or maybe even just
>
> 	bool fault_expected;
>
> and letting the assert define which vector is expected.
>

This also works, will change.

-- 
Vitaly