linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add get-reg-list test

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: <20230529-7b3e41e6aca55f9e90dd6cd3@orel>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 09:08:51 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@...il.com>
Cc:     Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@...el.com>, maz@...nel.org,
        oliver.upton@...ux.dev, seanjc@...gle.com,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add get-reg-list test

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:39:57PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:18 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:38:35PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
...
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a6),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a7),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s2),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s3),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s4),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s5),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s6),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s7),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s8),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s9),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s10),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s11),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t3),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t4),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t5),
> > > +     KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t6),
> >
> > ...all the above would just be indices rather than named registers. I
> > guess that's better for these registers.
> >
> 
> You mean to show it as KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]) ...
> KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[31])?
>

I'm OK with these registers using their names in this list, it does look
better. However the original idea for these lists was that they would be
generated from print_reg(). In this case, print_reg() is generating them
with their number instead of name. Either print_reg() could learn how to
generate their names by handling the offset ranges of each register type,
e.g.

switch (reg_off) {
case 10 ... 17:
   strdup_printf("... KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a%d),", reg_off - 10);

or we can use the numbers here in this list, or we can leave it as you
have it (i.e. done manually).

Thanks,
drew