Re: [PATCH V2] SelfTest: KVM: Drop Asserts for madvise MADV_NOHUGEPAGE failure

Kind reminder to merge my patch into next thanks. On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 01:50:55PM +0200, Ahmed Abd El Mawgood wrote: > > From: Ahmed Abd El Mawgood > > > > madvise() returns -1 without CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y. That would > > trigg

Re: [PATCH V7 0/10] KVM: X86: Introducing ROE Protection Kernel Hardening

Hello, > > I don't understand why this path needs to be optimized. To me it seems, a > > straight- > > forward userspace implementation with no additional code in the kernel > > achieves > > the same feature. Can you elaborate? I was doing some benchmarking to figure out the overhead introduce

Re: [PATCH V7 0/10] KVM: X86: Introducing ROE Protection Kernel Hardening

Hello, > Given that writes to these areas should be exceptional occurrences, No not in the case of partially protected page. > I don't understand why this path needs to be optimized. To me it seems, a > straight- > forward userspace implementation with no additional code in the kernel > achie

Re: KVM selftests are failing

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 3:37 PM Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Ahmed Soliman writes: > > > Hello once again, > > > > I noticed that there is still more problems with kvmself test (at > > least on my machine) > > > > Any test that would successfully reach

Re: KVM selftests are failing

Hello once again, I noticed that there is still more problems with kvmself test (at least on my machine) Any test that would successfully reach the guest's code immediately VMexit by a shutdown. $ ./vmx_tsc_adjust_test Test Assertion Failure x86_64/vmx_tsc_adjust_test.c:156: run->exit

Re: KVM selftests are failing

Hello, On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:50 PM Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 03:36:44PM +0200, Ahmed Soliman wrote: > > mmap(NULL, 6291456, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, > > -1, 0) = 0x7f46ea2a1000 > > madvise(0x7f46ea2a1000, 6291456, MADV

Re: KVM selftests are failing

Hello, On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM Andrew Jones wrote: > I think you should be able to pre-compile the selftests and save them, > and then bisect the kernel further back than their introduction. Actually > you may want to simplify the test case to just a mmap/madvise pair and > see if that r

Re: KVM selftests are failing

Hello again, On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:23 PM Ahmed Soliman wrote: > I don't do a make clean normally, but I will do it this time when > bisecting, also I only use shallow > clones so it will also take some time pulling. Also to note, The arch > I am using is Haswell, I am n

Re: KVM selftests are failing

Hello, > > I couldn't reproduce this on a Westmere. Are you sure you're testing > > a clean compilation? Can you bisect the kernel? I don't do a make clean normally, but I will do it this time when bisecting, also I only use shallow clones so it will also take some time pulling. Also to note, The

KVM selftests are failing

Hello, KVM Self tests located at tools/testing/selftests/kvm seams to be failing. I have tried: - dirty_log_test - x86_64/cr4_cpuid_sync_test - x86_64/evmcs_test - x86_64/platform_info_test - x86_64/set_sregs_test - x86_64/state_test - x86_64/sync_regs_test - x86_64/vmx_tsc_adjust_test Al

how does 0x##p##q work

I was working on cleaning up some files in the crypto dirctory using checkpatch.pl and I found this strange define in crypto/gf128mul.c #define xx(p, q) 0x##p##q It just seems really weird macro and I cant figure out what is it supposed to do!! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub