From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793641840; b=nIJKSobVsvgzjF4VWAUCtlXuWB5x5TCIkhv9asWE1lM/otzmQC6ySV8tV07zIjEq9eGY qSbqgc9SifQLOSixn9LMQArlD56eaPe9D0ANYQUeqg66hW/n54mZKML7SMnNel7Hxok3E 8wlubHa7BmWwqdRLAiMAbFQsxf6U9fCcMydlNWhVDGfi/51zLa9cLjO4Ud3ojoSGzkmT/ 5cgwAu0kxA+AoGzujXulQdTVyzxjcq2rT9tj5xVXFKOOGU/TNLp8hWNz97rZkGziroHTJ zVZBJm8uHShha2fYKRhYLx7jk92xiGbYoEvQji3dFqfSjoOHbq/53pWxC6dsrAJ4erQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793641840; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=MbpMrPfAJkzH84jz1jUrcuftv0Ahe2G5yuntSJxYSQs=; b=l9yypvbK3z66X6ddVgjk+LQ2sXfBYH/S6eEKc6WpH7wvbJjbBzupHrEk9+mYzovtMNno gog0OrmaIa64RInqPtt4aJLCWea3BlQMNGMGnfhyhHu9H+zHBq10KXRparGBRdcCEa3Oy +0xvhn6R+ltaOKr1N25/OOUHy6oXyzXW007qNu3Zi1bksG2ppTwkoIvVagG4nZMzif+g6 rwhREgqTH/tsgzp33rOr6sWKxWkTniED+dH/ieslBQdY30oCxrWazwRdEFNTCRUZhrjIT c8PIQnRQ4Yiw3jHPBSLG4ZV1GNkgB/usElDUd+3hVPP/Z88MJPK1rjqtff5COxKEKqA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=dHVuuHer; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 226EF606A337 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2026 17:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=dHVuuHer Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B94731F00A16; Mon, 2 Nov 2026 17:50:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793641839; bh=MbpMrPfAJkzH84jz1jUrcuftv0Ahe2G5yuntSJxYSQs=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=dHVuuHervwGcajPbDAm3BNwVewpz/7T2bWe1/JBlmyMGBmvxdu6ogAIXE7KqdU/jJ 3e/uAf+986WA7vdFBLQ/tJd9HgqbwdwR0zXGF3/T+gdxpNG8jAPZEtkifum43RhbL7 rb5pToRfaeMLYtf0e+2xARJK5XjHRZaWOddQsTP+oQrExahJV1V4AXCg20A0udzZrn 1W68kLptxKkZZI94u5WLFaX+RGyCDUWaqusI3dXBBgzGmq1/f5lXyRz7fuhdXXHk7o c9445yAjhjyIzhcZ9LsebsCZJMvZcmCxig0GCGYUxLcvyl6jgmcXbT1jZsx1TSIXNe lwCXd0sefFN0Q== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/45] KVM: selftests: Take into account mixed memory fault flags Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Paolo Bonzini" , kvm@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261102174130.8779-8-pbonzini@redhat.com> References: <20261102174130.8779-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20261102174130.8779-8-pbonzini@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2026 17:50:39 +0000 X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] KVM: selftests: leftover flags check in test_private_access_mems= lot_deleted() -- commit 6287705468987b3051cb61deae85c0b625189112 Author: Nicolas Saenz Julienne KVM: selftests: Take into account mixed memory fault flags This commit updates private_mem_kvm_exits_test to check that KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE is set in memory_fault.flags using a bitwise test rather than strict equality, allowing other valid flags such as KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_READ to be set alongside it. Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260918135030.171564-3-pbonzini@redhat.com > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/private_mem_kvm_exits_test.c= b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/private_mem_kvm_exits_test.c > index f7228e0f1ac61..ed8edde9b7180 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/private_mem_kvm_exits_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/private_mem_kvm_exits_test.c > @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ static void test_private_access_memslot_deleted(void) > } else { > TEST_ASSERT_EQ(exit_reason, KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT); > TEST_ASSERT_EQ(vcpu->run->memory_fault.flags, KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRI= VATE); > + TEST_ASSERT(vcpu->run->memory_fault.flags & KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVA= TE, > + "Memory fault didn't occur on a private memory access"); [Severity: Medium] Should the existing TEST_ASSERT_EQ(vcpu->run->memory_fault.flags, KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE) in test_private_access_memslot_deleted() be removed here as well, just like in test_private_access_memslot_not_private(= )? With the old equality check left in place, test_private_access_memslot_dele= ted() will still fail if KVM sets additional flags such as KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_R= EAD in vcpu->run->memory_fault.flags. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261102174130.8779= -1-pbonzini@redhat.com?part=3D7