linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] KVM: selftests: arm64: Make set_id_regs bitfield validatity checks non-fatal

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: <89fd9661-731c-4335-bee8-575a7c221390@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:45:04 +0000
From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Oliver Upton <oupton@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 v3 3/4] KVM: selftests: arm64: Make set_id_regs bitfield
 validatity checks non-fatal

Hi Mark,

On 12/19/25 19:28, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently when set_id_regs encounters a problem checking validation of
> writes to feature registers it uses an immediately fatal assert to report
> the problem. This is not idiomatic for kselftest, and it is also not great
> for usability. The affected bitfield is not clearly reported and further
> tests do not have their results reported.
> 
> Switch to using standard kselftest result reporting for the two asserts
> we do, these are non-fatal asserts so allow the program to continue and the
> test names include the affected field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

This one also looks good to me. I'm not aware of why the asserts have
been favoured previously though.

Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>

Thanks,

Ben