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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9410CA5FA2 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:43:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=WvjIK8lMJjZQ6TYt7Ry3gctA6WmwroJ6f2WMOorPUPQ=; b=nwWwm+5X4dVhBiZHQHCidt1ip0 4bvLltYdhPgggM0Azu1Z3qb8u4MctoYOgfkLKIOIBxLTCRraCtHF0HHYdBTkyW06wXwun1oeQKO+H RM+3IKUisp5FJmpdak03HwRddV0Gx+Q5PTsvBCYjy0dXPiF2Cek+o27MczduXAKgrq+F6UDXBBQ8t C0ty4WSYzbZ1dIlq+0CAB4AWXZXDwB9B49sMwcH903bRh7lTO/Fapzhp89Hp839hVqnxhY31Th8nb 2e255i+VM4Nsk27ZeMDkxSWS6k7yPGPu4g0kP1Nz25MAHYMD5kQo+2TKxD28YWt79Idwes++7o9qo j+9ws/Pg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xBDVb-00000000w1O-20Pz; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:43:15 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xBDVa-00000000w1F-0bId for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:43:14 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4877560052; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A20611F000FF; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:43:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790610193; bh=WvjIK8lMJjZQ6TYt7Ry3gctA6WmwroJ6f2WMOorPUPQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=BcT7OKmuAFs0uf8ul2TBIRFuaFueW7Kb6CkzFZ6XOaDunxOrqBe3KUlh+ZEoGfa87 0sFowvcUP1n3cQ9adY6DXnGNtxKliItjrZLIi1dzwLIu2B69nx2HEeuPisLLMIXS7B Ipbw7ltcGWYiwYGy/ZpT+Loe+Ro15NquMCbhIUxVi8E6ns+fWEGvcG8SRFTOsnTUaH UKob4f0VJ5rmvuZS0XKoe0csPSxFdsEIt8eWw2yZ1w+GTPlHToC3Lb3DS3b76k3+RJ 1jPorzDrT/qUDBznGdaeIQGbtNGG64lPI0jSEGHv+WvAU5TweAl2ClO3M2pY36cIdB yUD8iGWfYi0bw== Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 16:43:06 +0100 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: Mark Brown Cc: Marc Zyngier , Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , Oliver Upton , Ben Horgan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] KVM: selftests: arm64: Make set_id_regs bitfield validatity checks non-fatal Message-ID: References: <20260901-kvm-arm64-set-id-regs-aarch64-v7-0-7b065b0bda9a@kernel.org> <20260901-kvm-arm64-set-id-regs-aarch64-v7-3-7b065b0bda9a@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260901-kvm-arm64-set-id-regs-aarch64-v7-3-7b065b0bda9a@kernel.org> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Typo in subject: validatity -> validity On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 07:50:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > Currently when set_id_regs encounters a problem checking validation of > writes to feature registers it uses an immediately fatal assert to report > the problem. This is not idiomatic for kselftest, and it is also not great > for usability. The affected bitfield is not clearly reported and further > tests do not have their results reported. > > Switch to using standard kselftest result reporting for the two asserts > we do, these are non-fatal asserts so allow the program to continue and the > test names include the affected field. > > Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown One NIT below and typo noted above, with those addressed LGTM so: Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > index 3aa8886e8b70..385e1f1c0133 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, > u8 shift = ftr_bits->shift; > u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; > u64 val, new_val, ftr; > + bool match; > > val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); > ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; > @@ -434,7 +435,10 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, > > vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, reg, val); > new_val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); > - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(new_val, val); > + match = new_val == val; > + if (!match) > + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", new_val, val); > + ksft_test_result(match, "%s valid write succeeded\n", ftr_bits->name); Same pattern (I wonder, not for this series, but perhaps a follow up whether this could be generalised?) > > return new_val; > } > @@ -446,6 +450,7 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, > u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; > u64 val, old_val, ftr; > int r; > + bool match; > > val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); > ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; > @@ -462,7 +467,10 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, > "Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d", r, errno); > NIT: There's a: TEST_ASSERT(r < 0 && errno == EINVAL, "Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d", r, errno); Above, do we want to make that non-fatal too? > val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); > - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, old_val); > + match = val == old_val; > + if (!match) > + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", val, old_val); > + ksft_test_result(match, "%s invalid write rejected\n", ftr_bits->name); > } > > static u64 test_reg_vals[KVM_ARM_FEATURE_ID_RANGE_SIZE]; > @@ -502,7 +510,11 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) > for (int j = 0; ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) { > /* Skip aarch32 reg on aarch64 only system, since they are RAZ/WI. */ > if (aarch64_only && sys_reg_CRm(reg_id) < 4) { > - ksft_test_result_skip("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", > + ksft_print_msg("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", > + ftr_bits[j].name); > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s invalid write rejected\n", > + ftr_bits[j].name); > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s valid write succeeded\n", > ftr_bits[j].name); > continue; > } > @@ -514,8 +526,6 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) > > test_reg_vals[idx] = test_reg_set_success(vcpu, reg, > &ftr_bits[j]); > - > - ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", ftr_bits[j].name); > } > } > } > @@ -882,7 +892,7 @@ int main(void) > ID_REG_RESET_UNCHANGED_TEST; > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_regs); i++) > for (j = 0; test_regs[i].ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) > - test_cnt++; > + test_cnt += 2; > > ksft_set_plan(test_cnt); > > > -- > 2.47.3 > > -- Cheers, Lorenzo