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]

Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 20:20:58 +0800
From:   Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.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 Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:08 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> 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).
>

I agree that the print_reg() should print the register name instead of
the register offset.
It may be better to manually encode/decode the register offset to name
case by case
in the print_reg() since we just need to handle it once. Will update it in v3.

Thanks,
Haibo

> Thanks,
> drew