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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1284C433E2 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 19:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB5F20768 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 19:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="WanNAbs7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731746AbgIHTsy (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:48:54 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:33830 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730809AbgIHPuu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:50:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 088D3rhN029054; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:18:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=qRhVAsotMgvOB7IP3QnUDtz1XT5Cou8oexSmJxkX9/U=; b=WanNAbs7EkVCgShzuD0l5Yp+R2tH/7aNtVws2PCw/s7IxbeWlLbNyK3sdG3HImxTB0Ls B9ArN/Wf/l8aTQ42LUww2ZfnP2zNIGqvMuBXfIHSOVbuh8QeoMJQ+CIuO2XjByXkjrrN uhTy/44naPt+MebW5+he/dgjCY/r42E5qIKSYDFL6GajJWcABsk2fKEDvJGSMFeTCjhU 2kn7d5xIvpmnorFxziwQFC462aJ+QbY8/bHB8DVLyvRTLKO5Z3IA2dVipuR/9eaOvMJd hzgErSzZQruBfaLBrovRB1GtUIINQhcffFocyyTwn0T2np41Ah51jRjx/aa1526EvjAA Ng== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33e9sct9dw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:18:58 -0400 Received: from m0098394.ppops.net (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 088DDZdp078394; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:18:58 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33e9sct9cr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:18:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 088DH7Dq014131; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:18:55 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 33c2a8a4dq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:18:55 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 088DIqiN9109802 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:18:52 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6105F11C054; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:18:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC1C11C050; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:18:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.171.47.162]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:18:51 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:18:50 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Janosch Frank Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] s390x: Add 3f program exception handler Message-ID: <20200908131850.GG14136@osiris> References: <20200908075337.GA9170@osiris> <20200908130504.24641-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20200908130655.GF14136@osiris> <6551fde1-e19c-3b97-7a53-5a4dcb97f7bc@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6551fde1-e19c-3b97-7a53-5a4dcb97f7bc@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-08_06:2020-09-08,2020-09-08 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=1 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009080123 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 03:09:23PM +0200, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 9/8/20 3:06 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 09:05:04AM -0400, Janosch Frank wrote: > >> Program exception 3f (secure storage violation) can only be detected > >> when the CPU is running in SIE with a format 4 state description, > >> e.g. running a protected guest. Because of this and because user > >> space partly controls the guest memory mapping and can trigger this > >> exception, we want to send a SIGSEGV to the process running the guest > >> and not panic the kernel. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > >> CC: # 5.7+ > >> Fixes: 084ea4d611a3 ("s390/mm: add (non)secure page access exceptions handlers") > >> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda > >> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > >> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger > >> --- > >> arch/s390/kernel/entry.h | 1 + > >> arch/s390/kernel/pgm_check.S | 2 +- > >> arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > I guess this should go upstream via the s390 tree? > > Christian asked the exact same question. > I think we picked the secure/non-secure exception handlers via the s390 > tree so bringing these in via s390 would be in line with that. > > > Should I pick this up? > > That would be nice Done.