On 5/16/22 10:21, Nico Boehr wrote:
On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 09:50 +0000, Janosch Frank wrote:
Let's check if the UV really protected all the memory we donated.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks
One suggestion below for you to consider.
Sure, I'll rework the loops
---
s390x/uv-host.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c
index a1a6d120..0f0b18a1 100644
--- a/s390x/uv-host.c
+++ b/s390x/uv-host.c
@@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static void test_cpu_destroy(void)
static void test_cpu_create(void)
{
int rc;
- unsigned long tmp;
+ unsigned long tmp, i;
+ uint8_t *access_ptr;
report_prefix_push("csc");
uvcb_csc.header.len = sizeof(uvcb_csc);
@@ -194,6 +195,18 @@ static void test_cpu_create(void)
report(rc == 0 && uvcb_csc.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED &&
uvcb_csc.cpu_handle, "success");
+ rc = 1;
+ for (i = 0; i < uvcb_qui.cpu_stor_len / PAGE_SIZE; i++) {
+ expect_pgm_int();
+ access_ptr = (void *)uvcb_csc.stor_origin + PAGE_SIZE
* i;
+ *access_ptr = 42;
+ if (clear_pgm_int() !=
PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS) {
+ rc = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ report(rc, "Storage protection");
All of these for loops look pretty similar, would it make sense to move
them to their own function like:
assert_range_write_protected(void *start, size_t len, int
pgm_int_code)?
