linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] 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: <CAJve8onNFfHFcvAGkbtnxjzqgfq4geL1zOwJEc8Xzc=NHVDrFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:55:13 +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>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...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 v3 10/10] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add get-reg-list test

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 6:44 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:05:59PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:35 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:12:18AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list aia_config = {
> > > > +     .sublists = {
> > > > +     BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     AIA_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     {0},
> > > > +     },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct vcpu_reg_list fp_f_d_config = {
> > > > +     .sublists = {
> > > > +     BASE_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     FP_F_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     FP_D_REGS_SUBLIST,
> > > > +     {0},
> > > > +     },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct vcpu_reg_list *vcpu_configs[] = {
> > > > +     &zicbo_config,
> > > > +     &aia_config,
> > > > +     &fp_f_d_config,
> > > > +};
> > > > +int vcpu_configs_n = ARRAY_SIZE(vcpu_configs);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see we have a bit of a problem with the configs for riscv. Since we
> > > don't disable anything we're not testing, then for any test that is
> > > missing, for example, the f and d registers, we'll get output like
> > > "There are 66 new registers. Consider adding them to the blessed reg
> > > list with the following lines:" and then a dump of all the f and d
> > > registers. The test doesn't fail, but it's messy and confusing. Ideally
> > > we'd disable all registers of all sublists not in the config, probably
> > > by starting by disabling everything and then only reenabling the ones
> > > in the config.
> > >
> > > Anything that can't be disabled is either a KVM bug, i.e. we should
> > > be able to disable it, because we can't expect every host to have it,
> > > or it needs to be in the base register sublist (meaning every host
> > > will always have it).
> > >
> >
> > HI Andrew,
> >
> > I found several multi-letters ISA EXT(AIA/SSTC etc) were not allowed
> > to be disabled.
> > Is it a bug? shall we fix it？
>
> Extensions that a guest could use (regardless of whether or not the host
> described it in the guest's isa string), because the instructions or CSR
> accesses don't trap, can't truly be disabled. So, it's not a bug to
> prohibit disabling them and indeed the test cases should actually ensure
> disabling them fails.
>

So these kinds of ISA_EXT_* regs should be in the base reg list, right?

Thanks,
Haibo

> Thanks,
> drew