Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/5] s390x: css: testing measurement block format 1

From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com,
	imbrenda@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/5] s390x: css: testing measurement block format 1
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:04:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e49d579-ecd7-f39c-e0d8-412c4bbacbdb@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210212121545.44e13bd8.cohuck@redhat.com>

On 2/12/21 12:15 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:20:14 +0100
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Measurement block format 1 is made available by the extended
>> mesurement block facility and is indicated in the SCHIB by
> 
> s/mesurement/measurement/

50% good and yes, 50% bad, I change it thanks.

> 
>> the bit in the PMCW.
>>
>> The MBO is specified in the SCHIB of each channel and the MBO
>> defined by the SCHM instruction is ignored.
>>
>> The test of the MB format 1 is just skipped if the feature is
>> not available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/s390x/css.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>   s390x/css.c     | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 50 insertions(+)
> 
> (...)
> 
>> +static void test_schm_fmt1(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct measurement_block_format1 *mb1;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("Format 1");
>> +
>> +	mb1 = alloc_io_mem(sizeof(struct measurement_block_format1), 0);
>> +	if (!mb1) {
>> +		report_abort("measurement_block_format1 allocation failed");
>> +		goto end;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	schm(NULL, 0); /* Clear previous MB address */
> 
> Same comment as for the last patch.

Yes,

> 
>> +	schm(0, SCHM_MBU);
>> +
>> +	/* Expect error for non aligned MB */
>> +	report_prefix_push("Unaligned MB origin");
>> +	report_xfail(start_measure((u64)mb1 + 1, 0, true), mb1->ssch_rsch_count != 0,
>> +		     "SSCH measured %d", mb1->ssch_rsch_count);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +
>> +	memset(mb1, 0, sizeof(*mb1));
>> +
>> +	/* Expect success */
>> +	report_prefix_push("Valid MB address and index");
>> +	report(start_measure((u64)mb1, 0, true) &&
>> +	       mb1->ssch_rsch_count == SCHM_UPDATE_CNT,
>> +	       "SSCH measured %d", mb1->ssch_rsch_count);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +
>> +	free_io_mem(mb1, sizeof(struct measurement_block_format1));
> 
> Also here, you need to stop the measurements before freeing the block.

yes, I will.

Thanks,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen