linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: selftests: Check gp event filters without affecting fixed event filters

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZG+lEmoiJqB9H5tg@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 11:12:34 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: selftests: Check gp event filters without
 affecting fixed event filters

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023, Jinrong Liang wrote:
> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
> 
> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
> 
> Add a test to ensure that setting both generic and fixed performance
> event filters does not affect the consistency of the fixed performance
> filter behavior in KVM. This test helps to ensure that the fixed
> performance filter works as expected even when generic performance
> event filters are also set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c   | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> index 0f54c53d7fff..9be4c6f8fb7e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -889,6 +889,7 @@ static void test_fixed_ctr_action_and_bitmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	uint32_t bitmap;
>  	uint64_t count;
>  	bool expected;
> +	struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *f;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Check the fixed performance counter can count normally works when
> @@ -902,6 +903,19 @@ static void test_fixed_ctr_action_and_bitmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  			expected = fixed_ctr_is_allowed(fixed_ctr_idx, actions[i], bitmap);
>  			count = test_fixed_ctr_with_filter(vcpu, actions[i], bitmap);
>  
> +			TEST_ASSERT(expected == !!count,
> +				    "Fixed event filter does not work as expected.");
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * Check that setting both events[] and fixed_counter_bitmap
> +			 * does not affect the consistency of the fixed ctrs' behaviour.
> +			 *
> +			 * Note, the fixed_counter_bitmap rule has high priority.

"high" is ambiguous without a baseline.  I believe what you want to say is
"the fixed_counter_bitmap has higher priority than the events list".

> +			 */
> +			f = event_filter(actions[i]);
> +			f->fixed_counter_bitmap = bitmap;
> +			count = test_with_filter(vcpu, f);
> +
>  			TEST_ASSERT(expected == !!count,
>  				    "Fixed event filter does not work as expected.");
>  		}
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>