linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: selftests: Rename 'msr->availble' to 'msr->fault_exepected' 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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 19:18:30 +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>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: selftests: Rename 'msr->availble' to
 'msr->fault_exepected' in hyperv_features test

Nit, s/availble,/available

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It may not be clear what 'msr->availble' means. The test actually

Same typo here.

> checks that accessing the particular MSR doesn't cause #GP, rename
> the varialble accordingly.

s/varialble/variable

At least you're consistent :-)

> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c    | 96 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 48 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..1383b979e90b 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 fault_expected;
>  	bool write;
>  	u64 write_val;
>  };
> @@ -56,10 +56,10 @@ static void guest_msr(struct msr_data *msr)
>  	else
>  		vector = wrmsr_safe(msr->idx, msr->write_val);
>  
> -	if (msr->available)
> -		GUEST_ASSERT_2(!vector, msr->idx, vector);
> -	else
> +	if (msr->fault_expected)
>  		GUEST_ASSERT_2(vector == GP_VECTOR, msr->idx, vector);
> +	else
> +		GUEST_ASSERT_2(!vector, msr->idx, vector);
>  	GUEST_DONE();
>  }
>  
> @@ -153,12 +153,12 @@ static void guest_test_msrs_access(void)
>  			 */
>  			msr->idx = HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID;
>  			msr->write = 0;
> -			msr->available = 0;
> +			msr->fault_expected = 1;

Since all of these are getting inverted, opportunistically use "true" instead of "1"?