linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 21/26] selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test framework

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: <72a26cac-260a-4350-ba58-2651070f0246@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:19:17 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "Shaopeng Tan" <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>,
        Maciej Wieczór-Retman 
        <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/26] selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test
 framework

Hi Ilpo,

On 11/20/2023 3:13 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...

> +
> +static bool cmt_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> +	return validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "llc_occupancy") &&
> +	       validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3", NULL);
> +}
> +
...

> +
> +static bool mba_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
> +{
> +	return test_resource_feature_check(test) &&
> +	       validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "mbm_local_bytes");
> +}
> +

Could cmt_feature_check() not also use test_resource_feature_check(test)?
Why are cmt_feature_check() and mba_feature_check() different in this regard?

...

>  
> +/*
> + * resctrl_test:	resctrl test definition
> + * @name:		Test name
> + * @resource:		Resource to test (e.g., MB, L3, L2, etc.)
> + * @vendor_specific:	Bitmask for vendor-specific tests (can be 0 for universal tests)

I do not think these values were originally intended to be used in
a bitmask. The current values do make this possible but I would like to
suggest that their definition gets a comment to highlight how those
values are used.

The rest looks good to me. This is a good addition. Thank you.

Reinette