Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] qtests/arm: add some mte tests

[Eric Auger]

Hi Connie,

On 2/15/23 11:59, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06 2023, Eric Auger <eauger@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2/3/23 14:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> @@ -517,6 +583,13 @@ static void test_query_cpu_model_expansion_kvm(const 
>>> void *data)
>>>          assert_set_feature(qts, "host", "pmu", false);
>>>          assert_set_feature(qts, "host", "pmu", true);
>>>  
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * Unfortunately, there's no easy way to test whether this instance
>>> +         * of KVM supports MTE. So we can only assert that the feature
>>> +         * is present, but not whether it can be toggled.
>>> +         */
>>> +        assert_has_feature(qts, "host", "mte");
>> I know you replied in v4 but I am still confused:
>> What does
>>       (QEMU) query-cpu-model-expansion type=full model={"name":"host"}
>> return on a MTE capable host and and on a non MTE capable host?
> 
> FWIW, it's "auto" in both cases, but the main problem is actually
> something else...
> 
>>
>> If I remember correctly qmp_query_cpu_model_expansion loops over the
>> advertised features and try to set them explicitly so if the host does
>> not support it this should fail and the result should be different from
>> the case where the host supports it (even if it is off by default)
>>
>> Does assert_has_feature_enabled() returns false?
> 
> I poked around a bit with qmp on a system (well, model) with MTE where
> starting a guest with MTE works just fine. I used the minimal setup
> described in docs/devel/writing-monitor-commands.rst, and trying to do a
> cpu model expansion with mte=on fails because the KVM ioctl fails with
> -EINVAL (as we haven't set up proper memory mappings). The qtest setup
> doesn't do any proper setup either AFAICS, so enabling MTE won't work
> even if KVM and the host support it. (Trying to enable MTE on a host
> that doesn't support it would also report an error, but a different one,
> as KVM would not support the MTE cap at all.) We don't really know
> beforehand what to expect ("auto" is not yet expanded, see above), so
> I'm not sure how to test this in a meaningful way, even if we did set up
> memory mappings (which seems like overkill for a feature test.)
> 
> The comment describing this could be improved, though :)
> 

OK fair enough, don't make it a blocking issue for the series and simply
update the comment up to your knowledge.

Thanks

Eric