Hi Jing, Nothing serious, but when you're replying on a thread can you add a leading and trailing line of whitespace between the quotation and your reply? Otherwise threads get really dense and hard to read. On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Jing Zhang wrote: > > > + case FAIL_KVM: > > > + TEST_FAIL("KVM doesn't support guest PAuth!\n"); > > > > Why is that a hard failure? The vast majority of the HW out there > > doesn't support PAuth... > Since previous TEST_REQUIRES have passed, KVM should be able to > support guest PAuth. The test will be skipped on those HW without > PAuth. So then what is the purpose of this failure mode? The only case where this would happen is if KVM is if KVM screwed up the emulation somehow, took a trap on a PAC instruction or register and reflected that back into the guest as an UNDEF. That's a perfectly valid thing to test for, but the naming and failure messages should indicate what actually happened. > > As I mentioned above, another thing I'd like to see is a set of > > reference results for a given set of keys and architected algorithm > > (QARMA3, QARMA5) so that we can compare between implementations > > (excluding the IMPDEF implementations, of course). > Sure. Will do. I was initially hesitant towards testing PAC like this since it is entirely a hardware issue besides KVM context switching, but you could spin this off as a way to test if vCPU save/restore works correctly by priming the vCPU from userspace. Marc, is there something else here you're interested in exercising I may've missed? -- Thanks, Oliver