On Tue, May 19, 2026, Ackerley Tng wrote: > Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: > > @@ -542,6 +542,26 @@ static void > > test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void) > > TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EEXIST, "%s", > > "Overlapping guest_memfd() bindings should fail with > > EEXIST"); > > > > + /* > > + * Repeat the overlap tests, but so that there is overlap in the > > + * guest_memfd bindings (i.e. in guest_memfd file offsets), but > > _not_ > > + * in the GPA space. Regardless of where there's overlap, KVM > > should > > + * return -EEXIST. > > + */ > > + r = __vm_set_user_memory_region2(vm, MEM_REGION_SLOT, > > KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD, > > + MEM_REGION_GPA, > > + MEM_REGION_SIZE * 2, > > + 0, memfd, MEM_REGION_SIZE); > > + TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EEXIST, "%s", > > + "Overlapping guest_memfd() bindings should fail with > > EEXIST"); > > + > > + /* And now the back half of the other slot's guest_memfd binding. */ > > + r = __vm_set_user_memory_region2(vm, MEM_REGION_SLOT, > > KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD, > > + MEM_REGION_GPA, > > + MEM_REGION_SIZE * 2, > > + 0, memfd, MEM_REGION_SIZE * 3); > > + TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EEXIST, "%s", > > + "Overlapping guest_memfd() bindings should fail with > > EEXIST"); > > I just noticed this is kind of odd, what is the purpose of "%s" and then > filling the string in with a hardcoded string?
Purely oversight. I didn't even see it until you said something :-)
