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=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 595CEC4338F for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408A760241 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232482AbhHRJbS (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:31:18 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:24504 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232879AbhHRJap (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:30:45 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 17I94KTU149006; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:30:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=rrwoT9lQw3iJLAday0YaBLJiNIrt6O/boGqB5QPpshg=; b=BlyB4FN4sfxN0P1PyrM3+pivFr5Iu5dM2Py2UFW2ZJ8jXus7A2YVLRBYaUWl16S4ZsaH qsHrOfFgNHn6IDg3thbiP0tus+6aVBynTH5lFkcR4M2Vadl3Gzu5naxZ3Op6LsIoz4wO nenTSQ3O3CKpvfybjeq/FOJh50W0X52NpJcIr6KZ4afFCR5WhJ1ZMdP86sQT5WVnrGzN XcD75GFGXU9JElXcuVwl5POiL8seLfkhqWMg5tbmZrCJ6rPRpdqFB93omDTCh8I+Vt8s N2ZkntpFK5GE3fBWah6/i2fBXetGAR9xEUjFDMyny5+MlwuuqQH+/sVyfsxy4IL30SNJ Rg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3agcdxfjg4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:30:07 -0400 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 17I94TJ1151435; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:30:06 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3agcdxfjf9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:30:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 17I9SAPM029785; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:05 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ae5f8eac8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:04 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 17I9U1gv49611232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:01 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730A1A4098; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19751A4090; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p-imbrenda (unknown [9.145.14.177]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:30:01 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:29:58 +0200 From: Claudio Imbrenda To: Thomas Huth Cc: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/8] lib: s390x: Print addressing related exception information Message-ID: <20210818112958.730f9ee3@p-imbrenda> In-Reply-To: <1f99e6f8-27d1-7e4a-f706-12912e84f6f4@redhat.com> References: <20210813073615.32837-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210813073615.32837-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <1f99e6f8-27d1-7e4a-f706-12912e84f6f4@redhat.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: gazWIKywtqLpAJo5AhsjGcAq7mSZiIdS X-Proofpoint-GUID: kUsYpn9RgNxBx5KuThd0I__mwcB4gXOv X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-08-18_03:2021-08-17,2021-08-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2108180056 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:12:57 +0200 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 13/08/2021 09.36, Janosch Frank wrote: > > Right now we only get told the kind of program exception as well as > > the PSW at the point where it happened. > > > > For addressing exceptions the PSW is not always enough so let's > > print the TEID which contains the failing address and flags that > > tell us more about the kind of address exception. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > > --- > > lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 4 +++ > > lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 72 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 76 > > insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > > index 4ca02c1d..39c5ba99 100644 > > --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > > +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > > @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ struct psw { > > uint64_t addr; > > }; > > > > +/* Let's ignore spaces we don't expect to use for now. */ > > +#define AS_PRIM 0 > > +#define AS_HOME 3 > > + > > #define PSW_MASK_EXT 0x0100000000000000UL > > #define PSW_MASK_IO 0x0200000000000000UL > > #define PSW_MASK_DAT 0x0400000000000000UL > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > > index 01ded49d..1248bceb 100644 > > --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > > +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > > > static bool pgm_int_expected; > > static bool ext_int_expected; > > @@ -126,6 +127,73 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct > > stack_frame_int *stack) /* suppressed/terminated/completed point > > already at the next address */ } > > > > +static void decode_pgm_prot(uint64_t teid) > > +{ > > + /* Low-address protection exception, 100 */ > > + if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && > > !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) { > > Likely just a matter of taste, but I'd prefer something like: > > if ((teid & 0x8c) == 0x80) { or even better: switch (teid & TEID_MASK) { > > > + printf("Type: LAP\n"); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + /* Instruction execution prevention, i.e. no-execute, 101 > > */ > > + if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && > > test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) { > > + printf("Type: IEP\n"); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + /* Standard DAT exception, 001 */ > > + if (!test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) > > && test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) { > > + printf("Type: DAT\n"); > > + return; > > + } > > What about 010 (key controlled protection) and 011 (access-list > controlled protection)? Even if we do not trigger those yet, it might > make sense to add them right from the start, too? > > > +} > > + > > +static void decode_teid(uint64_t teid) > > +{ > > + int asce_id = lc->trans_exc_id & 3; > > Why are you referencing the lc->trans_exc_id here again? It's already > passed as "teid" parameter. > > > + bool dat = lc->pgm_old_psw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT; > > + > > + printf("Memory exception information:\n"); > > + printf("TEID: %lx\n", teid); > > + printf("DAT: %s\n", dat ? "on" : "off"); > > + printf("AS: %s\n", asce_id == AS_PRIM ? "Primary" : > > "Home"); > > Could "secondary" or "AR" mode really never happen here? I'd rather > like to see a switch-case statement here that is able to print all > four modes, just to avoid confusion. > > > + if (lc->pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION) > > + decode_pgm_prot(teid); > > + > > + /* > > + * If teid bit 61 is off for these two exception the > > reported > > + * address is unpredictable. > > + */ > > + if ((lc->pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS || > > + lc->pgm_int_code == > > PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION) && > > + !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) { > > + printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", teid & > > PAGE_MASK); > > + return; > > + } > > + printf("Address: %lx\n\n", teid & PAGE_MASK); > > +} > > + > > +static void print_storage_exception_information(void) > > +{ > > + switch (lc->pgm_int_code) { > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_PAGE_TRANSLATION: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_SEGMENT_TRANSLATION: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_ASCE_TYPE: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_REGION_FIRST_TRANS: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_REGION_SECOND_TRANS: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_REGION_THIRD_TRANS: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_NON_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS: > > + case PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION: > > + decode_teid(lc->trans_exc_id); > > + break; > > + default: > > + return; > > I think you could drop that default case. > > > + } > > +} > > + > > static void print_int_regs(struct stack_frame_int *stack) > > { > > printf("\n"); > > @@ -155,6 +223,10 @@ static void print_pgm_info(struct > > stack_frame_int *stack) lc->pgm_int_code, stap(), > > lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, lc->pgm_int_id); print_int_regs(stack); > > dump_stack(); > > + > > + /* Dump stack doesn't end with a \n so we add it here > > instead */ > > + printf("\n"); > > + print_storage_exception_information(); > > report_summary(); > > abort(); > > } > > >