[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAvGGc5Jt0uSkN8M@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 16:06:49 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...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 Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 04:15:33PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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
I assume that you mean the iommufd_access_set_ioas() call and
the "unsigned int ioas_id" input of iommufd_test_create_access?
Thanks
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists