From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6E5C35247 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 23:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFD7214AF for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 23:11:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0DFD7214AF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E9A4A5BD; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:35 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLE5fQFzhCIC; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9044A528; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C106B4A51E for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:32 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81roh4+9kroU for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B45134A32E for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:11:30 -0500 (EST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2020 15:11:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,411,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="264787622" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.202]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2020 15:11:27 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:11:27 -0800 From: Sean Christopherson To: Peter Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 19/19] KVM: selftests: Add test for KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION Message-ID: <20200206231127.GB24556@linux.intel.com> References: <20200121223157.15263-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20200121223157.15263-20-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20200206223001.GJ700495@xz-x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200206223001.GJ700495@xz-x1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: Wanpeng Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Janosch Frank , Marc Zyngier , Joerg Roedel , Christian Borntraeger , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jim Mattson , Cornelia Huck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:30:01PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:31:57PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Add a KVM selftest to test moving the base gfn of a userspace memory > > region. Although the basic concept of moving memory regions is not x86 > > specific, the assumptions regarding large pages and MMIO shenanigans > > used to verify the correctness make this x86_64 only for the time being. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > (I'm a bit curious why write 2 first before 1...) To verify KVM actually relocated the memslot and didn't leave anything in the TLB. If "2" isn't written, KVM could completely botch the MOVE but the guest_code() would still signal pass because it would eventually see the 0-> transitions. > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu > > -- > Peter Xu > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm