linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/29] TDX KVM selftests

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:34:01 -0500
From: Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "vipinsh@...gle.com" <vipinsh@...gle.com>, 
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	"Xu, Haibo1" <haibo1.xu@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"Afranji, Ryan" <afranji@...gle.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, 
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, 
	"ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>, 
	"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, 
	"runanwang@...gle.com" <runanwang@...gle.com>, 
	"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, "pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/29] TDX KVM selftests

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:56 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 15:42 -0500, Sagi Shahar wrote:
> > > > Hm you're right, I was looking more narrowly because of the kvm-coco-
> > > > queue conflicts, for some of which even v19 might be too old. The MMU
> > > > prep series uses a much more recent kvm-coco-queue baseline.
> > > >
> > > > Rick, can we post a branch with /everything/ on this MMU prep baseline
> > > > for this selftest refresh?
> > >
> > > Actually I see the branch below does contain everything, not just the
> > > MMU prep patches. Sagi, is this fine for a baseline?
> > >
> > Maybe for internal development but I don't think I can post an
> > upstream patchset based on an internal Intel development branch.
> > Do you know if there's a plan to post a patch series based on that branch
> > soon?
>
> We don't currently have plans to post a whole ~130 patch series. Instead we plan
> to post subsections out of the series as they slowly move into a maintainer
> branch.

So this means that we won't be able to post an updated version of the
selftests for a while unless we lock it to the V19 patchset which is
based on v6.8-rc5
Do you have an estimate on when the TDX patches get to the point where
they could support the basic lifecycle selftest?
>
> We are trying to use the selftests as part of the development of the base TDX
> base series. So we need to be able to run them on development branches to catch
> regressions and such. For this purpose, we wouldn't need updates to be posted to
> the mailing list. It probably needs either some sort of co-development, or
> otherwise we will need to maintain an internal fork of the selftests.
>
> We also need to add some specific tests that can cover gaps in our current
> testing. Probably we could contribute those back to the series.
>
> What do you think?

I will take a look at rebasing the selftests on top of the Intel
development branch and I can post it on our github branch. We can talk
about co-development offline. We already have some code that was
suggested by Isaku as part of our tests.