[igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATH i-g-t 2/2] tests: add slice power programming test

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 06/09/2018 08:00, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-09-05 15:25:44)
>> From: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>>
>> Verifies that the kernel programs slices correctly based by reading
>> the value of PWR_CLK_STATE register or MI_SET_PREDICATE on platforms
>> before Cannonlake.
>>
>> v2: Add subslice tests (Lionel)
>>      Use MI_SET_PREDICATE for further verification when available (Lionel)
>>
>> v3: Rename to gem_ctx_rpcs (Lionel)
>>
>> v4: Update kernel API (Lionel)
>>      Add 0 value test (Lionel)
>>      Exercise invalid values (Lionel)
>>
>> v5: Add perf tests (Lionel)
>>
>> v6: Add new sysfs entry tests (Lionel)
>>
>> v7: Test rsvd fields
>>      Update for kernel series changes
>>
>> v8: Drop test_no_sseu_support() test (Kelvin)
>>      Drop drm_intel_*() apis (Chris)
>>
>> v9: by Chris:
>>      Drop all do_ioctl/do_ioctl_err()
>>      Use gem_context_[gs]et_param()
>>      Use gem_read() instead of mapping memory
>>      by Lionel:
>>      Test dynamic sseu on/off more
>>
>> Tvrtko Ursulin:
>>
>> v10:
>>   * Various style tweaks and refactorings.
>>   * New test coverage.
> 
> I didn't notice any testing of:
>   - param->size

It exists in test_invalid_args.

>   - feeding garbage into param->value user pointer (always cleared before
>     use, perhaps just poison instead), along with abusive pointers.

Also in test_invalid_args - but only the null pointer. I can add an 
unmapped or read-only one.

>     E.g., how does the code fare if we pass in an unfaulted GGTT mmap?

Would not fare well. :I It would be best to be able to reject them but 
how? We'll hit the same problem in future other patches so to support 
this, I think we need to refactor

Regards,

Tvrtko