On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, Cathy Avery wrote:
> In cases when xerror is 0 ( the test is not expected to error ) and
> the test does error we get a confusing test result as the vmlaunch status
> is based on !xerror:
>
> FAIL: Enable-EPT enabled; EPT page walk length 24: vmlaunch succeeds
>
> This patch also eliminates the double call to report per launch and
> clarifies the failure messages. New format suggested by seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Signed-off-by: Cathy Avery <cavery@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> x86/vmx_tests.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> index 3d57ed6..0dab98e 100644
> --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
> +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> @@ -3392,14 +3392,21 @@ static void test_vmx_vmlaunch(u32 xerror)
> bool success = vmlaunch_succeeds();
> u32 vmx_inst_err;
>
> - report(success == !xerror, "vmlaunch %s",
> - !xerror ? "succeeds" : "fails");
> - if (!success && xerror) {
> - vmx_inst_err = vmcs_read(VMX_INST_ERROR);
> + if (!success)
> + vmx_inst_err = vmcs_read(VMX_INST_ERROR);
Needs to be indended. With that fixed,
Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
