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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 0AFBEC49ED7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3A420692 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="jabpBu46" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388716AbfIMQ0Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:26:16 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com ([209.85.166.66]:38822 "EHLO mail-io1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388221AbfIMQ0Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:26:16 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id k5so38561680iol.5 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:26:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/Jvt42VoVMIvX+z8JvgXA9bBfoE/Qc/TXYUYnG8sqD4=; b=jabpBu46Dgj78Nkjza9EwVDqOHcInrTK4g8e1L7FkDO0uL2FpAN06adAdTjtj9EC/3 /NcYtjj3CEOhqtBZKcqi0But8hbCg657muR0Dow0ZcP2HkZe2gbfOtIys13k7T5axp8R DxbYmYdI224nn/RVFriKoWY8diVF5lH/9NnNxop8UvXRdz9ubuvTXWLe4JjqzKONNo8j 1kTtLjZszsoKWGz+/99Pr8q3gpICKtCgSMCAsIew8WpyxvoKxIR2QZsaCSAKR60psJQg QYj40navpmdFS8CPB4ZSFy8BCn+v6Q8U2iIZ6wS7A9XqJ+V7ImLxvGIHW5GaCOsdlbcv W3mg== 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=/Jvt42VoVMIvX+z8JvgXA9bBfoE/Qc/TXYUYnG8sqD4=; b=t8EC/DHrnzTnq12EEoC9cWCxDvOMDwDYkxxQHiWNYltxETi+kyWeSNAF7Li0FPXxJO 0qlzWJQ+bI53CZN57QRlOFnE23cdw4NyJfFLZqwJIzWe9r+zmnMEMKcVNaDq+KAgHcPc MhTmAHFq54vvw4RJIi3RoMBi+FsdeFHO+6iH5IG0jBfM0HF9KlejUkxk2/Z6WtPzNU5C 0d8gi9TbnH1UvPpzSV+F5scfLIMhWfyH9oLuCVEpA11qqbDcgGwnqrTxpTIZZc3hg2gL i/g0gzTiQoMIggfZe987xMfMIYAGmUSZa1UlHtGzj/GTju4JWOcITEjY50wYJt6H/TaP eXTw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVTtgBMuDfQUqbTjJbu9KJByejbgqg1S9IhDikrTA7iOXM21160 08ZIDg02Ar6CHEKj7ZrhPKv1wUOP3QQlXHh3kKPUQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx0Q/sG2Jsk+9s0Lw9oKQo4ajm52kJ1v8tNV97lViBaTmfzD7mY59nnC/lR7CTu+P6P263UqxwYfWfWFdL/mGI= X-Received: by 2002:a02:b782:: with SMTP id f2mr4303520jam.48.1568391975095; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:26:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190912180928.123660-1-marcorr@google.com> <20190913152442.GC31125@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20190913152442.GC31125@linux.intel.com> From: Jim Mattson Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:26:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] x86: nvmx: test max atomic switch MSRs To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Marc Orr , kvm list , Peter Shier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:24 AM Sean Christopherson wrote: > This is a misleading name, e.g. it took me quite a while to realize this > is testing only the passing scenario. For me, "limit test" implies that > it'd be deliberately exceeding the limit, or at least testing both the > passing and failing cases. I suppose we can't easily test the VMX abort > cases, but we can at least test VM_ENTER_LOAD. It's hard to test for "undefined behavior may result." :-) One could check to see if the test is running under KVM, and then check for the behavior that Marc's other patch introduces, but even that is implementation-dependent.