From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
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 2/2] KVM: selftests: arm64: Use generated defines for named system registers
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:35:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <868qxe0wzp.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240802-kvm-arm64-get-reg-list-v1-2-3a5bf8f80765@kernel.org>
On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:57:54 +0100,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Currently the get-reg-list test uses directly specified numeric values to
> define system registers to validate. Since we already have a macro which
> allows us to use the generated system register definitions from the main
> kernel easily let's update all the registers where we have specified the
> name in a comment to just use that macro. This reduces the number of
> places where we need to validate the name to number mapping.
>
> This conversion was done with the sed command:
>
> sed -i -E 's-ARM64_SYS_REG.*/\* (.*) \*/-KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_\1),-' tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c
>
[Eyes rolling]
What I asked about scripting the whole thing, it never occurred to me
that you would use the *comments* as a reliable source of information.
Do we have anything less reliable than comments in the kernel?
The matching must be done from the arch/arm64/tools/sysreg file,
because that's the (admittedly dubious) source of truth. We actually
trust the encodings because they are reported by the kernel itself.
The comment is hand-written, and likely wrong.
Also, this hides the horrible truth about existing ABI bugs, see
below.
> We still have a number of numerically specified registers, some of these
> are reserved registers without defined names (eg, unallocated ID registers)
> and others don't have kernel macro definitions yet.
>
> No change in the generated output.
>
> Suggested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c | 208 ++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c
> index a00322970578..4d786c4ab28a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/get-reg-list.c
> @@ -313,14 +313,14 @@ static __u64 base_regs[] = {
> KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(0), /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP */
> KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(1), /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP */
> KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(2), /* KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 14, 3, 1), /* CNTV_CTL_EL0 */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 14, 3, 2), /* CNTV_CVAL_EL0 */
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_CNTV_CTL_EL0),
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_CNTV_CVAL_EL0),
> ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 14, 0, 2),
Great. So not only you fail convert a register, but you also ignore
the nugget described in arch/arm64/invlude/uapi/asm/kvm.h:267.
Sure, having both described hides the crap, as we don't attach any
significance to the registers themselves. But that shows how
untrustworthy the comments are.
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 0, 0), /* MIDR_EL1 */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 0, 6), /* REVIDR_EL1 */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 1, 0, 0, 1), /* CLIDR_EL1 */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 1, 0, 0, 7), /* AIDR_EL1 */
> - ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 0, 0, 1), /* CTR_EL0 */
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_MIDR_EL1),
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_REVIDR_EL1),
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_CLIDR_EL1),
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_AIDR_EL1),
> + KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_CTR_EL0),
> ARM64_SYS_REG(2, 0, 0, 0, 4),
> ARM64_SYS_REG(2, 0, 0, 0, 5),
> ARM64_SYS_REG(2, 0, 0, 0, 6),
As far as I can tell, these registers are not unallocated, and they
should be named.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-03 9:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-02 21:57 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: selftests: arm64: Make use of sysreg defintions in get-reg-list Mark Brown
2024-08-02 21:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: selftests: arm64: Simplify specification of filtered registers Mark Brown
2024-08-04 11:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-08-02 21:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: selftests: arm64: Use generated defines for named system registers Mark Brown
2024-08-03 9:35 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-08-05 16:16 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-06 8:03 ` Andrew Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=868qxe0wzp.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox