linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] KVM: s390: selftests: Add regression tests for PLO subfunctions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZsNs8aIXM71NCG4h@darkmoore>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 18:04:01 +0200
From: Christoph Schlameuss <schlameuss@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Hariharan Mari <hari55@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] KVM: s390: selftests: Add regression tests for
 PLO subfunctions

On Mon Aug 19, 2024 at 3:54 PM CEST, Hariharan Mari wrote:
> Extend the existing regression test framework for s390x CPU subfunctions
> to include tests for the Perform Locked Operation (PLO) subfunction
> functions.
>
> PLO was introduced in the very first 64-bit machine generation.
> Hence it is assumed PLO is always installed in the Z Arch.
> The test procedure follows the established pattern.
>
> Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hariharan Mari <hari55@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  .../kvm/s390x/cpumodel_subfuncs_test.c        | 36 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/cpumodel_subfuncs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/cpumodel_subfuncs_test.c
> index 901c99fe79d9..255984a52365 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/cpumodel_subfuncs_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/cpumodel_subfuncs_test.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
>  
>  #include "kvm_util.h"
>  
> +#define U8_MAX  ((u8)~0U)
> +
>  /**
>   * Query available CPU subfunctions
>   */
> @@ -37,6 +39,33 @@ static void get_cpu_machine_subfuntions(struct kvm_vm *vm,
>  	TEST_ASSERT(!r, "Get cpu subfunctions failed r=%d errno=%d", r, errno);
>  }
>  
> +static inline int plo_test_bit(unsigned char nr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long function = (unsigned long)nr | 0x100;
> +	int cc;
> +
> +	asm volatile("	lgr	0,%[function]\n"
> +			/* Parameter registers are ignored for "test bit" */
> +			"	plo	0,0,0,0(0)\n"
> +			"	ipm	%0\n"
> +			"	srl	%0,28\n"
> +			: "=d" (cc)
> +			: [function] "d" (function)
> +			: "cc", "0");
> +	return cc == 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Testing Perform Locked Operation (PLO) CPU subfunction's ASM block
> + */
> +static void test_plo_asm_block(u8 (*query)[32])
> +{
> +	for (int i = 0; i <= U8_MAX; ++i) {
> +		if (plo_test_bit(i))
> +			(*query)[i >> 3] |= 0x80 >> (i & 7);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Testing Crypto Compute Message Authentication Code (KMAC) CPU subfunction's
>   * ASM block
> @@ -235,8 +264,13 @@ struct testdef {
>  	u8 *subfunc_array;
>  	size_t array_size;
>  	testfunc_t test;
> -	bool facility_bit;
> +	int facility_bit;

Why change that to int here?

>  } testlist[] = {
> +	/*  PLO was introduced in the very first 64-bit machine generation.
> +	 *  Hence it is assumed PLO is always installed in Z Arch .
> +	 */
> +	{ "PLO", cpu_subfunc.plo, sizeof(cpu_subfunc.plo),
> +		test_plo_asm_block, 1 },
>  	/* MSA - Facility bit 17 */
>  	{ "KMAC", cpu_subfunc.kmac, sizeof(cpu_subfunc.kmac),
>  		test_kmac_asm_block, 17 },