On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 08:10:01 +0100 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
Minor nit: I think that the subject is a bit unwieldy. What about "tests/acceptance: Test virtio-rng on s390 via /dev/hwrng" ? > On 11/12/2020 21.30, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 12/11/20 2:31 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> /dev/hwrng is only functional if virtio-rng is working right, so let's > >> add a sanity check for this device node. > > > > Good idea. > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> tests/acceptance/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py > >> b/tests/acceptance/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py > >> index 733a7ca24a..7d0a78139b 100644 > >> --- a/tests/acceptance/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py > >> +++ b/tests/acceptance/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py > >> @@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ class S390CCWVirtioMachine(Test): > >> '-append', kernel_command_line, > >> '-device', 'virtio-net-ccw,devno=fe.1.1111', > >> '-device', > >> - 'virtio-rng-ccw,devno=fe.2.0000,max_revision=0', > >> + > >> 'virtio-rng-ccw,devno=fe.2.0000,max_revision=0,id=rn1', > >> '-device', > >> - 'virtio-rng-ccw,devno=fe.3.1234,max_revision=2', > >> + > >> 'virtio-rng-ccw,devno=fe.3.1234,max_revision=2,id=rn2', > >> '-device', 'zpci,uid=5,target=zzz', > >> '-device', 'virtio-net-pci,id=zzz', > >> '-device', 'zpci,uid=0xa,fid=12,target=serial', > >> @@ -96,6 +96,19 @@ class S390CCWVirtioMachine(Test): > >> exec_command_and_wait_for_pattern(self, > >> 'cat > >> /sys/bus/ccw/devices/0.3.1234/virtio?/features', > >> virtio_rng_features) > >> + # check that /dev/hwrng works - and that it's gone after ejecting > >> + exec_command_and_wait_for_pattern(self, > >> + 'dd if=/dev/hwrng of=/tmp/out.dat bs=1k count=10', > >> + '10+0 records out') > >> + self.clear_guests_dmesg() > >> + self.vm.command('device_del', id='rn1') > >> + self.wait_for_crw_reports() > >> + self.clear_guests_dmesg() > >> + self.vm.command('device_del', id='rn2') > >> + self.wait_for_crw_reports() > >> + exec_command_and_wait_for_pattern(self, > >> + 'dd if=/dev/hwrng of=/tmp/out.dat bs=1k count=10', Does this work if you direct the output to /dev/null? > >> + 'dd: /dev/hwrng: No such device') > > > > Maybe the expected pattern is too fragile. On my Fedora 33 system, 'dd' will > > print a different message. > > We are running this test with a well-defined kernel + initrd, so I don't > think we have to care of other versions of dd here. > > > What if it checks for the presence of the device file, e.g: > > > > ... self, 'test -c /dev/hwrng; echo $?', '1') > > That doesn't work, the /dev/hwrng is still there (so test -c succeeds), > since this initrd uses static device nodes for this in /dev. /dev/hwrng just > can not be opened anymore after the device has been removed. I had been thinking about a different approach to check that, but dd really looks like the easiest way.