On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:46:04 +0200 Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/13/22 14:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 13:04:34 +0200 > > Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 5/12/22 16:01, Nico Boehr wrote: > >>> Upon migration, we expect storage keys being set by the guest to be preserved, > >>> so add a test for it. > >>> > >>> We keep 128 pages and set predictable storage keys. Then, we migrate and check > >>> they can be read back and the respective access restrictions are in place when > >>> the access key in the PSW doesn't match. > >>> > >>> TCG currently doesn't implement key-controlled protection, see > >>> target/s390x/mmu_helper.c, function mmu_handle_skey(), hence add the relevant > >>> tests as xfails. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> s390x/Makefile | 1 + > >>> s390x/migration-skey.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> s390x/unittests.cfg | 4 ++ > >>> 3 files changed, 103 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 s390x/migration-skey.c > >>> [...] > Not at all with regards to skeys. But neither is checking the keys on access. > And for kvm, both TPROT and checking is handled by SIE. fair enough > > > > to be fair, this test is only about checking that storage keys are > > correctly migrated, maybe the check for actual protection is out of > > scope > > > > Having more tests does no harm and might uncover things nobody thought of, > but I'd also be fine with keeping it short and sweet. > [...] I think this migration test should be kept more on focus about migration we can always have a storage keys "torture test" separately
