[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAuP5ewmDwql8Pn5@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 16:15:33 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org,
robin.murphy@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org,
yi.l.liu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
farman@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] iommufd/selftest: Add
IOMMU_TEST_OP_ACCESS_SET_IOAS coverage
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 06:25:59AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> Add a new IOMMU_TEST_OP_ACCESS_SET_IOAS to allow setting access->ioas
> individually, corresponding to the iommufd_access_set_ioas() helper.
>
> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd_test.h | 4 +++
> drivers/iommu/iommufd/selftest.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----
> tools/testing/selftests/iommu/iommufd_utils.h | 22 ++++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
I'd prefer we keep it so that the IOAS can be setup with an argument,
this will greatly help syzkaller
Lets have it so a 0 ioas will avoid the setup so the second call can
happen
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists