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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B5CC48BDF for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D61761279 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232536AbhFRVWj (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:22:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53890 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231631AbhFRVWd (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:22:33 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98071C061574 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 5-20020a9d01050000b02903c700c45721so11049992otu.6 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:20:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9lgU/PMWeQeUbCd3XE0jzHQ9dorLgAsc49ujOL35SEU=; b=GzBgZ4E84z3ZOlgfz9osCY0uVbPfDfg91HIzGAbwashIBb2RG8gUXUHeYvzgvJu9VH FaecV8qk+evG0P3FUGbn4tilFeHYzxj3MlzpAeRin4IzhJ/6L//Xc6T7uEERcN/hwd/Z Nc6z+TBd6Yr6XuvAAZ1eGuoT0PDDnRQIw0kX7Klq/lx2pmafHvyoz8qJoUU3BJ002sTF 4d5clG5zABOfXhuLo4OVxNY3RQsA8zIFYkOQCBkgxh7bkVXDmbRd1KsTB9ZiGh1Yxdlc mYeOvBFUh+/eijE7EL4ffif2pgqODA99ov5Q7lbAca5Zaudr/nREItCmna7MIHKETWFC S9iw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9lgU/PMWeQeUbCd3XE0jzHQ9dorLgAsc49ujOL35SEU=; b=Rb3JNCE2RA01AaE2meS20WeYJ6vie9du3eM81uy4a/ZaWoUc5e/a8tphOuSZOxWNhS 45fPtfw6WpPMA4LzqtJi8zIMh8iFyn1EXGT/npnjlDlbamMA8vlMcLZyJ9JVCrEdYwtL +5rfj1Fb1h/8DP596K147luFifwP/VQMsH8vvsCtjRnPFI8zSKoPoZkooR6l8py38KUH AuFzZrRG9G1aovyU0PGx5rNRmcYeEdRa6RyQXQo7h/GbW0Jpe48HPZHJoAd1vlR1LC0+ 2teIvSGYPjI34Jw8biOrp5F1k1xtwOsT22oKhbqWAU0VvDet+huVZWodBsCLXZmNOSHl aJIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530pIF0tseVWRYlgOSTiw7aNGtUIhJno9Sx0HnoOKua5rSbRFhDK trhUzk/94GNyscB3U76XW41WEVsl2pxsObNGZaU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyjgUUV11wJ0gms1NAz7TjBOaHPz5GI4ofwlF+2UnFBFvBeGxrrDaYWqIAcDV5YYTNjA09oc7TRvZSGUbbGRs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2241:: with SMTP id t1mr11535635otd.123.1624051222032; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:20:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210618113118.70621-1-laramglazier@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lara Lazier Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 23:20:10 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests] svm: Updated cr4 in test_efer to fix report msg To: Jim Mattson Cc: Krish Sadhukhan , kvm@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Am Fr., 18. Juni 2021 um 23:10 Uhr schrieb Jim Mattson : > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 1:57 PM Lara Lazier wrote: > > > > Am Fr., 18. Juni 2021 um 22:26 Uhr schrieb Jim Mattson : > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:59 PM Lara Lazier wrote: > > > > > > > My understanding is as follows: > > > > The "first" test should succeed with an SVM_EXIT_ERR when EFER.LME and > > > > CR0.PG are both > > > > non-zero and CR0.PE is zero (so I believe we do not really care > > > > whether CR4.PAE is set or not though > > > > I might be overlooking something here). > > > > > > You are overlooking the fact that the test will fail if CR4.PAE is > > > clear. If CR4.PAE is 0 *and* CR0.PE is 0, then you can't be sure which > > > one triggered the failure. > > Oh, yes that makes sense! Thank you for the explanation. > > I will move it back up. > > I think this may be subtle enough to warrant a comment as well, if > you're so inclined. Sure, I will add a corresponding comment.