linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: Selftests changes for 6.9

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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:40:44 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: Selftests changes for 6.9

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 3/8/24 23:36, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Add SEV(-ES) smoke tests, and start building out infrastructure to utilize the
> > > "core" selftests harness and TAP.  In addition to provide TAP output, using the
> > > infrastructure reduces boilerplate code and allows running all testscases in a
> > > test, even if a previous testcase fails (compared with today, where a testcase
> > > failure is terminal for the entire test).
> > 
> > Hmm, now I remember why I would have liked to include the AMD SEV changes in
> > 6.9 --- because they get rid of the "subtype" case in selftests.
> > 
> > It's not a huge deal, it's just a nicer API, and anyway I'm not going to ask
> > you to rebase on top of my changes; and you couldn't have known that when we
> > talked about it last Wednesday, since the patches are for the moment closely
> > guarded on my hard drive.
> 
> Heh, though it is obvious in hindsight.
>  
> > But it may still be a good reason to sneak those as well in the second week
> > of the 6.9 merge window, though I'm not going to make a fuss if you disagree.
> 
> My preference is still to wait.  I would be very surprised if the subtype code
> gains any users in the next few weeks, i.e. I doubt it'll be any harder to rip
> out the subtype code in 6.9 versus 6.10.
> 
> On the other hand, waiting until 6.10 for the SEV changes will give us a bit more
> time to see how they interact with the SNP and TDX series, e.g. in the off chance
> there's something in the uAPI that could be done better for SNP and/or TDX.

Though I'll add the belated disclaimer that performance testing is not my strong
suit...