linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: selftests: Cover ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1 in set_id

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: <25cf9d85-0f42-46d9-a4b6-618b406256f1@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 23:29:15 +0800
From: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@...ux.dev>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
 Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: selftests: Cover ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1 in
 set_id_regs

On 2025/9/21 03:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> We have a couple of writable bitfields in ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1 but the
> set_id_regs selftest does not cover this register at all, add coverage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c
> index bfb70926272d..c7c38b1a1f10 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c
> @@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ static const struct reg_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64isar2_el1[] = {
>  	REG_FTR_END,
>  };
>  
> +static const struct reg_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64isar3_el1[] = {
> +	REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1, FPRCVT, 0),
> +	REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1, LSFE, 0),
> +	REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1, FAMINMAX, 0),
> +	REG_FTR_END,
> +};
> +
>  static const struct reg_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64pfr0_el1[] = {
>  	REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, CSV3, 0),
>  	REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, CSV2, 0),
> @@ -221,6 +228,7 @@ static struct test_feature_reg test_regs[] = {
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar0_el1),
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar1_el1),
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR2_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar2_el1),
> +	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar3_el1),
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64pfr0_el1),
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, ftr_id_aa64pfr1_el1),
>  	TEST_REG(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64mmfr0_el1),
> @@ -239,6 +247,7 @@ static void guest_code(void)
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1);
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1);
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR2_EL1);
> +	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR3_EL1);
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1);
>  	GUEST_REG_SYNC(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);

Not related to this patch but seems that we forgot to sync several
registers (ID_AA64PFR1, MPIDR, CLIDR) in guest to make sure the guest
had seen the written value.

Zenghui