linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/5] selftests: KVM: Decouple SEV ioctls from asserts

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: <7a449bc1-8ae6-4242-a8ce-df917042a1a6@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:27:57 -0500
From: "Sampat, Pratik Rajesh" <pratikrajesh.sampat@....com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>, <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	<michael.roth@....com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] selftests: KVM: Decouple SEV ioctls from asserts



On 7/11/2024 11:11 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
>> +int sev_vm_launch_update(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy)
>> +{
>> +       struct userspace_mem_region *region;
>> +       int ctr, ret;
>>
>> +       hash_for_each(vm->regions.slot_hash, ctr, region, slot_node) {
>> +               ret = encrypt_region(vm, region, 0);
>> +               if (ret)
>> +                       return ret;
>> +       }
>>         if (policy & SEV_POLICY_ES)
>>                 vm_sev_ioctl(vm, KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_UPDATE_VMSA, NULL);
> 
> Adding the sev-es policy bit for negative testing is a bit confusing,
> but I guess it works. For negative testing should we be more explicit?
> Ditto for other usages of `policy` simply to toggle sev-es features.

You're right. Although it works because the way we want for negative
testing it does go by exercising a different path meant for a different
policy.

Maybe I can refactor the old code to all test for type instead like I
have done with the rest of the patchset just so that we are more
explicit. Would that fare any better?