From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C4461048925 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vw9sL-0001ff-Su; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:16:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vw9sJ-0001f7-Hs; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:16:11 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vw9sH-0006V2-LA; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:16:11 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 61S1jCqU1341057; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:04 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=cKe5FI T3P0W69/7DuYJL2Ck9xoy6NwdG7K9TdPtBdP8=; b=kLNJZaogQBKokpTHabhrGI XonJ+mEQ/5mmNsq7l8ngt6HgJrQPPzfC+yHt66dcCiqLdcw/yJL6JTQsQ3ANqlWX z6R+moc2z3nUadMeTaFwgONEymsTYpVXIgyvvAJteFtMYRaXKlWx0oFHSCQRln+C wWp3dpzqrfqt9I3Ka1BBA6xB5jWD+smC9veGOMLroRwEzfB/ExwzuSWIyB0h0KUR vXLNNgrYZwCFQ6hbxqLvYvaOC2KAAIYRlT75axgKKffvLogZRHHSnTQieoyA5azs aRlYwu0IUas2e59GCAHRaq0rD3fR/NEWo/sR1XRNYGHgjcIcW2Sn2Tf3aiDPZv5g == Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cf4crf8a5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 61RLnjYu014012; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:03 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.69]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cfqdyn4mq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:03 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.228]) by smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 61S2G1qT4588102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:01 GMT Received: from smtpav01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C880958055; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C845804B; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.61.45.42] (unknown [9.61.45.42]) by smtpav01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:16:00 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:15:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/30] s390x/diag: Implement DIAG 320 subcode 1 To: Thomas Huth , berrange@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, jrossi@linux.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: david@kernel.org, walling@linux.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, farman@linux.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, eblake@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, alifm@linux.ibm.com, brueckner@linux.ibm.com References: <20260212204352.1044699-1-zycai@linux.ibm.com> <20260212204352.1044699-8-zycai@linux.ibm.com> <35753e04-2b27-4621-8175-802cd81b1950@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Zhuoying Cai In-Reply-To: <35753e04-2b27-4621-8175-802cd81b1950@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Q63kFRq-JbG2X4LJsi9aE4YGMR3QPiNN X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwMjI4MDAxOCBTYWx0ZWRfX0YC07CeVgkvj 5ZttVR8ZPBavRULeg6owYsN7LBsisnHxHBw5aQRiW/1hq82dIotZNWT9DOTobSQ/cFEbuwv3UtG hOemSftkj7/7xAeS7QBkVIaWo3bp3g2PdfJPs17sn45oCKNLCWMWk2p+6Trj44hjuA5ybXa7wZM bYJt6OvRDXG0kGHlqwEDmK0oxAs+UjoMOgpIrMfnogPXQSiOS168ql05cDGODVeWfSPyEKNpERC C+kDnEfrbPEuq4NyBc4EmfJ5zlkGN2bSETlobr2rsZlma+xUpsq6Y3Csm1mISSeDImSRZ1Il6pC 0D+OLWDNTj364NxcUIL8cIeHk/WX59iuA/LrgcWJ7ENyNejNgd2vq074fO+nM4boTjabmaLS0G4 XQv44pH8il9f69riivXEJtVd+BnZueTLWR/XebFhJpF9rzDQSAihlfamg7jTtNGgAvnE2Di6VpS v2JprCchH8Qr+vJKfsg== X-Proofpoint-GUID: Q63kFRq-JbG2X4LJsi9aE4YGMR3QPiNN X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=bbBmkePB c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=69a24fe4 cx=c_pps a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:117 a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=HzLeVaNsDn8A:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=Mpw57Om8IfrbqaoTuvik:22 a=GgsMoib0sEa3-_RKJdDe:22 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=kcdiRMMwfZbRNOjC4EwA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1121,Hydra:6.1.51,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-02-27_04,2026-02-27_03,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2601150000 definitions=main-2602280018 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=zycai@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.706, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.401, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 2/27/26 7:58 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12/02/2026 21.43, Zhuoying Cai wrote: >> DIAG 320 subcode 1 provides information needed to determine >> the amount of storage to store one or more certificates from the >> certificate store. >> >> Upon successful completion, this subcode returns information of the current >> cert store, such as the number of certificates stored and allowed in the cert >> store, amount of space may need to be allocate to store a certificate, >> etc for verification-certificate blocks (VCBs). >> >> The subcode value is denoted by setting the left-most bit >> of an 8-byte field. >> >> The verification-certificate-storage-size block (VCSSB) contains >> the output data when the operation completes successfully. A VCSSB >> length of 4 indicates that no certificate are available in the cert >> store. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhuoying Cai >> Reviewed-by: Farhan Ali >> Reviewed-by: Collin Walling >> --- > ... >> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/ipl/diag320.h b/include/hw/s390x/ipl/diag320.h >> index aa04b699c6..6e4779c699 100644 >> --- a/include/hw/s390x/ipl/diag320.h >> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/ipl/diag320.h >> @@ -11,10 +11,32 @@ >> #define S390X_DIAG320_H >> >> #define DIAG_320_SUBC_QUERY_ISM 0 >> +#define DIAG_320_SUBC_QUERY_VCSI 1 >> >> #define DIAG_320_RC_OK 0x0001 >> #define DIAG_320_RC_NOT_SUPPORTED 0x0102 >> +#define DIAG_320_RC_INVAL_VCSSB_LEN 0x0202 >> >> #define DIAG_320_ISM_QUERY_SUBCODES 0x80000000 >> +#define DIAG_320_ISM_QUERY_VCSI 0x40000000 >> + >> +#define VCSSB_NO_VC 4 >> +#define VCSSB_MIN_LEN 128 >> +#define VCE_HEADER_LEN 128 >> +#define VCB_HEADER_LEN 64 >> + >> +struct VCStorageSizeBlock { >> + uint32_t length; >> + uint8_t reserved0[3]; >> + uint8_t version; >> + uint32_t reserved1[6]; >> + uint16_t total_vc_ct; >> + uint16_t max_vc_ct; >> + uint32_t reserved3[11]; >> + uint32_t max_single_vcb_len; >> + uint32_t total_vcb_len; >> + uint32_t reserved4[10]; >> +}; >> +typedef struct VCStorageSizeBlock VCStorageSizeBlock; > > Since this API between QEMU and the guest, maybe add a > > QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(VCStorageSizeBlock) != ...); > > here to make sure that there is no accidential padding. > (should not happen since field are naturally aligned, but better be safe > than sorry?) > Please correct me if I’m wrong. QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON() is a QEMU-specific macro and is not accessible from the guest, so using it here would cause a compile error. I’m not aware of similar checks being used on the guest side. Would QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON() still be appropriate in this case, or is there a better way to ensure that no unintended padding is introduced? >> #endif >> diff --git a/target/s390x/diag.c b/target/s390x/diag.c >> index e867fc2156..3c7e64eb05 100644 >> --- a/target/s390x/diag.c >> +++ b/target/s390x/diag.c >> @@ -197,11 +197,54 @@ out: >> } >> } >> >> +static int handle_diag320_query_vcsi(S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t addr, uint64_t r1, >> + uintptr_t ra, S390IPLCertificateStore *cs) >> +{ >> + g_autofree VCStorageSizeBlock *vcssb = NULL; >> + >> + vcssb = g_new0(VCStorageSizeBlock, 1); >> + if (s390_cpu_virt_mem_read(cpu, addr, r1, vcssb, sizeof(*vcssb))) { >> + s390_cpu_virt_mem_handle_exc(cpu, ra); >> + return -1; >> + } >> + >> + if (be32_to_cpu(vcssb->length) > sizeof(*vcssb)) { >> + return -1; >> + } > > Thanks for adding the check, but I think this should rather be : > > return DIAG_320_RC_INVAL_VCSSB_LEN; > > since we did not inject an exception in this case? > >> + if (be32_to_cpu(vcssb->length) < VCSSB_MIN_LEN) { >> + return DIAG_320_RC_INVAL_VCSSB_LEN; >> + } > > ... > >> + case DIAG_320_SUBC_QUERY_VCSI: >> + if (!diag_parm_addr_valid(addr, sizeof(VCStorageSizeBlock), true)) { >> + s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_ADDRESSING, ra); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + if (addr & 0x7) { >> + s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_ADDRESSING, ra); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + rc = handle_diag320_query_vcsi(cpu, addr, r1, ra, cs); >> + if (rc == -1) { >> + return; > > ... otherwise the error will be ignored silently here and the guest will > think that the call succeeded. > > Maybe you could also create some kvm-unit-tests for this new diag call that > exercises these error scenarios, then you'll easily see whether the diag > behaves as expected. > > Thanks, > Thomas > > Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll fix the return code and look into adding kvm‑unit‑tests for this new diag call. >> + } >> + env->regs[r1 + 1] = rc; >> + break; >> default: >> env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_320_RC_NOT_SUPPORTED; >> break; >