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
