On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:37:34 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
On 03/17/2017 12:36 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
The test takes
x86-cpuid-Something-guest.xml CPU (the CPU libvirt would use for host-model on a CPU described by x86_64-cpuid-Something.xml without talking to QEMU about what it supports on the host)
and updates it according to CPUID data from QEMU:
x86_64-cpuid-Something-enabled.xml (reported as "feature-words" property of the CPU device)
and
x86_64-cpuid-Something-disabled.xml (reported as "filtered-features" property of the CPU device).
The result is compared to
x86_64-cpuid-Something-json.xml (the CPU libvirt would use as host-model based on the reply from query-cpu-model-expansion).
The comparison is a bit tricky because the *-json.xml CPU contains fewer disabled features. Only the features which are included in the base CPU model, but listed as disabled in *.json will be disabled in *-json.xml. The CPU computed by virCPUUpdateLive from the test data will list all features present in the host's CPUID data and not enabled in *.json as disabled. The cpuTestUpdateLiveCompare function checks that the computed and expected sets of enabled features match.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com> --- tests/cputest.c | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 149 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/cputest.c b/tests/cputest.c index 4a4d427e1..2c64c2cd0 100644 --- a/tests/cputest.c +++ b/tests/cputest.c @@ -523,6 +523,151 @@ cpuTestGuestCPUID(const void *arg) }
+static int +cpuTestUpdateLiveCompare(virArch arch, + virCPUDefPtr actual, + virCPUDefPtr expected) +{ + size_t i, j; + int ret = 0; + + if (virCPUExpandFeatures(arch, actual) < 0 || + virCPUExpandFeatures(arch, expected) < 0) + return -1; + + if (STRNEQ(actual->model, expected->model)) { + VIR_TEST_VERBOSE("Actual CPU model '%s', expected '%s'\n", + actual->model, expected->model); + return -1; + } + + i = j = 0; + while (i < actual->nfeatures || j < expected->nfeatures) { + virCPUFeatureDefPtr featAct = NULL; + virCPUFeatureDefPtr featExp = NULL; + int cmp; + + if (i < actual->nfeatures) + featAct = actual->features + i; + + if (j < expected->nfeatures) + featExp = expected->features + j; + + /* + * Act < Exp => cmp < 0 (missing entry in Exp) + * Act = Exp => cmp = 0 + * Act > Exp => cmp > 0 (missing entry in Act) + * + * NULL > name for any name != NULL + */ + if (featAct && featExp) + cmp = strcmp(featAct->name, featExp->name); + else + cmp = featExp ? 1 : -1; + + if (cmp <= 0) + i++; + if (cmp >= 0) + j++; + + /* Possible combinations of cmp, featAct->policy, and featExp->policy: + * cmp Act Exp result + * --------------------------------- + * 0 dis dis ok + * 0 dis req missing + * 0 req dis extra + * 0 req req ok + * --------------------------------- + * - dis X ok # ignoring extra disabled features + * - req X extra + * --------------------------------- + * + X dis extra + * + X req missing + */ + if ((cmp == 0 && + featAct->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_DISABLE && + featExp->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_REQUIRE) || + (cmp > 0 && + featExp->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_REQUIRE)) { + VIR_TEST_VERBOSE("Actual CPU lacks feature '%s'\n", + featExp->name); + ret = -1; + continue; + } + + if ((cmp == 0 && + featAct->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_REQUIRE && + featExp->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_DISABLE) || + (cmp < 0 && + featAct->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_REQUIRE) || + (cmp > 0 && + featExp->policy == VIR_CPU_FEATURE_DISABLE)) { + VIR_TEST_VERBOSE("Actual CPU has extra feature '%s'\n", + featAct->name);
I know it's only a test, but this log message raised Coverity's attention because it's not sure featAct is NULL at this point if "cmp > 0". So that I can at least mask it my local tree - could featAct be NULL or should there be a different message if cmp > 0?
Oops, featAct should be used only if cmp <= 0, otherwise it will either be NULL or irrelevant and featExp should be used instead. Jirka