linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: x86: Use TAP interface in the sync

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: <ZMrLMYxj3s+vHGrQ@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:31:29 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: x86: Use TAP interface in the
 sync_regs test

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Oh, and no need to post "KVM: selftests: Rename the ASSERT_EQ macro" in the next
> version, I'm planning on grabbing that one straightaway.

After paging this all back in...

I would much prefer that we implement the KVM specific macros[*], e.g. KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(),
and build on top of those.  I'm definitely ok doing a "slow" conversion, i.e. starting
with a few easy tests.  IIRC at some point I said I strongly preferred an all-or-nothing
approach, but realistically I don't think we'll make progress anytime soon if we try to
boil the ocean.

But I do think we should spend the time to implement the infrastructure right away.  We
may end up having to tweak the infrastructure down the road, e.g. to convert other tests,
but I would rather do that then convert some tests twice.

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2v+B3xxYKJSM%2FfH@google.com