| Message ID | 20221117221758.66326-6-scgl@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: s390: Extend MEM_OP ioctl by storage key checked cmpxchg | expand |
On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are > met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if > certain bits are set in the memop extension capability. > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void) > kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm); > } > > -struct testdef { > - const char *name; > - void (*test)(void); > - int extension; > -} testlist[] = { > - { > - .name = "simple copy", > - .test = test_copy, > - }, > - { > - .name = "generic error checks", > - .test = test_errors, > - }, > - { > - .name = "copy with storage keys", > - .test = test_copy_key, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "copy with key storage protection override", > - .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "copy with key fetch protection", > - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", > - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "error checks with key", > - .test = test_errors_key, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "termination", > - .test = test_termination, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", > - .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", > - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > - { > - .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", > - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, > - .extension = 1, > - }, > -}; > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > int extension_cap, idx; > > + setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ > TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP)); > + extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION); > > - setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ > + struct testdef { > + const char *name; > + void (*test)(void); > + bool requirements_met; > + } testlist[] = { > + { > + .name = "simple copy", > + .test = test_copy, > + .requirements_met = true, > + }, > + { > + .name = "generic error checks", > + .test = test_errors, > + .requirements_met = true, > + }, > + { > + .name = "copy with storage keys", > + .test = test_copy_key, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "copy with key storage protection override", > + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection", > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "error checks with key", > + .test = test_errors_key, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "termination", > + .test = test_termination, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", > + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > + }, > + { > + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" instead of "extension_cap > 0" ? Anyway: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:52 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > > This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are > > met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if > > certain bits are set in the memop extension capability. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void) > > kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm); > > } > > [...] > > > > + } testlist[] = { > > + { > > + .name = "simple copy", > > + .test = test_copy, > > + .requirements_met = true, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "generic error checks", > > + .test = test_errors, > > + .requirements_met = true, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with storage keys", > > + .test = test_copy_key, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key storage protection override", > > + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection", > > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", > > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key", > > + .test = test_errors_key, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "termination", > > + .test = test_termination, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" > instead of "extension_cap > 0" ? The cap should always have been a bitmap, but unfortunately I didn't initially define it as one, the storage key extension must be supported if the cap > 0. So the test reflects that and may catch an error in the future. > > Anyway: > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > Thanks!
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void) kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm); } -struct testdef { - const char *name; - void (*test)(void); - int extension; -} testlist[] = { - { - .name = "simple copy", - .test = test_copy, - }, - { - .name = "generic error checks", - .test = test_errors, - }, - { - .name = "copy with storage keys", - .test = test_copy_key, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "copy with key storage protection override", - .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "copy with key fetch protection", - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "error checks with key", - .test = test_errors_key, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "termination", - .test = test_termination, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", - .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, - .extension = 1, - }, - { - .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, - .extension = 1, - }, -}; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int extension_cap, idx; + setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP)); + extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION); - setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ + struct testdef { + const char *name; + void (*test)(void); + bool requirements_met; + } testlist[] = { + { + .name = "simple copy", + .test = test_copy, + .requirements_met = true, + }, + { + .name = "generic error checks", + .test = test_errors, + .requirements_met = true, + }, + { + .name = "copy with storage keys", + .test = test_copy_key, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "copy with key storage protection override", + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "copy with key fetch protection", + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "error checks with key", + .test = test_errors_key, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "termination", + .test = test_termination, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + { + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, + }, + }; ksft_print_header(); - ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(testlist)); - extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION); for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) { - if (extension_cap >= testlist[idx].extension) { + if (testlist[idx].requirements_met) { testlist[idx].test(); ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", testlist[idx].name); } else { - ksft_test_result_skip("%s - extension level %d not supported\n", - testlist[idx].name, - testlist[idx].extension); + ksft_test_result_skip("%s - requirements not met (kernel has extension cap %#x\n)", + testlist[idx].name, extension_cap); } }
This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if certain bits are set in the memop extension capability. Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)