Open andreeaflorescu opened 4 years ago
does this issue still need to be worked on? @andreeaflorescu
@anth1y yes, this is still relevant. We need to also provide negative tests (similar to those of x86) on aarch64.
@andreeaflorescu thank you for getting back to me I'll take a look at this tonight. pardon my ignorance but what exactly is meant by "negative tests"?
Here we were referring to having similar negative tests as the existing one on x86_64. The test is called test_faulty_vcpu_fd
and it is linked in the issue description.
That test is a "negative test" because it is using invalid FDs to check the return value of various ioctls.
let faulty_vcpu_fd = VcpuFd {
vcpu: unsafe { File::from_raw_fd(-1) },
kvm_run_ptr: KvmRunWrapper {
kvm_run_ptr: mmap_anonymous(10),
mmap_size: 10,
},
};
assert_eq!(faulty_vcpu_fd.get_regs().unwrap_err().errno(), badf_errno);
So we should create faulty vCPU, KVM, Device, and VM file descriptors (as you can see in the previous example), and run the appropriate ioctls on both x86_64 and aarch64. Does that make sense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhu3NTOHz-M I gotcha thank you sooo much
There are already negative tests for x86_64: https://github.com/rust-vmm/kvm-ioctls/blob/a6380052496c2db83fbbc0936ea66afc87b742a8/src/ioctls/vcpu.rs#L1813
We should make sure that we do not duplicate test code. We can do that by having a platform independent negative test with ioctls that are valid on all supported platforms, and 2 platform dependent tests (one for x86_64, and one for aarch64).