linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Move testlist into main

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: <c801611e-61db-73d2-2ff1-cd06350215b2@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:52:38 +0100
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Move testlist into
 main

On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are
> met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if
> certain bits are set in the memop extension capability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void)
>   	kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
>   }
>   
> -struct testdef {
> -	const char *name;
> -	void (*test)(void);
> -	int extension;
> -} testlist[] = {
> -	{
> -		.name = "simple copy",
> -		.test = test_copy,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "generic error checks",
> -		.test = test_errors,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "copy with storage keys",
> -		.test = test_copy_key,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "copy with key storage protection override",
> -		.test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "copy with key fetch protection",
> -		.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
> -		.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "error checks with key",
> -		.test = test_errors_key,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "termination",
> -		.test = test_termination,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
> -		.test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
> -		.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -	{
> -		.name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
> -		.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
> -		.extension = 1,
> -	},
> -};
>   
>   int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>   {
>   	int extension_cap, idx;
>   
> +	setbuf(stdout, NULL);	/* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
>   	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP));
> +	extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
>   
> -	setbuf(stdout, NULL);	/* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
> +	struct testdef {
> +		const char *name;
> +		void (*test)(void);
> +		bool requirements_met;
> +	} testlist[] = {
> +		{
> +			.name = "simple copy",
> +			.test = test_copy,
> +			.requirements_met = true,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "generic error checks",
> +			.test = test_errors,
> +			.requirements_met = true,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "copy with storage keys",
> +			.test = test_copy_key,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "copy with key storage protection override",
> +			.test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "copy with key fetch protection",
> +			.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
> +			.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "error checks with key",
> +			.test = test_errors_key,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "termination",
> +			.test = test_termination,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
> +			.test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
> +			.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> +		},
> +		{
> +			.name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
> +			.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
> +			.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,

I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" 
instead of "extension_cap > 0" ?

Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>