[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 0/4] s390x: Add skey removal facility test

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 0/4] s390x: Add skey removal facility test

[Janosch Frank]

The storage key removal facility (skrf) is an anti-facility, which
makes skey related instructions result in a special operation
exception when they handle storage keys. E.g. pfmf in clearing mode
does not result in an exception, but pfmf key setting does.

The skrf is always active in protected virtualization guests and can
be emulated by KVM (expected to be upstreamed with the remaining hpage
patches).

v2:
* Added march z12 bump patch
* Addressed review

Janosch Frank (4):
  s390x: Move pfmf to lib and make address void
  s390x: Storage key library functions now take void ptr addresses
  s390x: Bump march to zEC12
  s390x: Add storage key removal facility

 lib/s390x/asm/mem.h |  40 +++++++++++---
 s390x/Makefile      |   3 +-
 s390x/pfmf.c        |  71 +++++++++---------------
 s390x/skey.c        |  29 +++++-----
 s390x/skrf.c        | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c

-- 
2.17.0

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/4] s390x: Move pfmf to lib and make address void

[Janosch Frank]

It's needed by other tests soon.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/asm/mem.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 s390x/pfmf.c        | 57 +++++++++++----------------------------------
 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h b/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
index 75bd778..9b8fd70 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
@@ -54,4 +54,35 @@ static inline unsigned char get_storage_key(unsigned long addr)
 	asm volatile("iske %0,%1" : "=d" (skey) : "a" (addr));
 	return skey;
 }
+
+#define PFMF_FSC_4K 0
+#define PFMF_FSC_1M 1
+#define PFMF_FSC_2G 2
+
+union pfmf_r1 {
+	struct {
+		unsigned long pad0 : 32;
+		unsigned long pad1 : 12;
+		unsigned long pad_fmfi : 2;
+		unsigned long sk : 1; /* set key*/
+		unsigned long cf : 1; /* clear frame */
+		unsigned long ui : 1; /* usage indication */
+		unsigned long fsc : 3;
+		unsigned long pad2 : 1;
+		unsigned long mr : 1;
+		unsigned long mc : 1;
+		unsigned long pad3 : 1;
+		unsigned long key : 8; /* storage keys */
+	} reg;
+	unsigned long val;
+};
+
+static inline void *pfmf(unsigned long r1, void *paddr)
+{
+	register void * addr asm("1") = paddr;
+
+	asm volatile(".insn rre,0xb9af0000,%[r1],%[addr]"
+		     : [addr] "+a" (addr) : [r1] "d" (r1) : "memory");
+	return addr;
+}
 #endif
diff --git a/s390x/pfmf.c b/s390x/pfmf.c
index 9bf434a..9986624 100644
--- a/s390x/pfmf.c
+++ b/s390x/pfmf.c
@@ -16,60 +16,29 @@
 #include <asm/facility.h>
 #include <asm/mem.h>
 
-#define FSC_4K 0
-#define FSC_1M 1
-#define FSC_2G 2
-
-union r1 {
-	struct {
-		unsigned long pad0 : 32;
-		unsigned long pad1 : 12;
-		unsigned long pad_fmfi : 2;
-		unsigned long sk : 1; /* set key*/
-		unsigned long cf : 1; /* clear frame */
-		unsigned long ui : 1; /* usage indication */
-		unsigned long fsc : 3;
-		unsigned long pad2 : 1;
-		unsigned long mr : 1;
-		unsigned long mc : 1;
-		unsigned long pad3 : 1;
-		unsigned long key : 8; /* storage keys */
-	} reg;
-	unsigned long val;
-};
-
 static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 256] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 256)));
 
-static inline unsigned long pfmf(unsigned long r1, unsigned long paddr)
-{
-	register uint64_t addr asm("1") = paddr;
-
-	asm volatile(".insn rre,0xb9af0000,%[r1],%[addr]"
-		     : [addr] "+a" (addr) : [r1] "d" (r1) : "memory");
-	return addr;
-}
-
 static void test_priv(void)
 {
 	report_prefix_push("privileged");
 	expect_pgm_int();
 	enter_pstate();
-	pfmf(0, (unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	pfmf(0, pagebuf);
 	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
 
 static void test_4k_key(void)
 {
-	union r1 r1;
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
 	union skey skey;
 
 	report_prefix_push("4K");
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
-	r1.reg.fsc = FSC_4K;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
 	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
-	pfmf(r1.val, (unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
 	skey.val = get_storage_key((unsigned long) pagebuf);
 	skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
 	report("set storage keys", skey.val == 0x30);
@@ -80,15 +49,15 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
 {
 	int i;
 	bool rp = true;
-	union r1 r1;
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
 	union skey skey;
 
 	report_prefix_push("1M");
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
-	r1.reg.fsc = FSC_1M;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_1M;
 	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
-	pfmf(r1.val, (unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
 	for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
 		skey.val = get_storage_key((unsigned long) pagebuf + i * PAGE_SIZE);
 		skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
@@ -103,15 +72,15 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
 
 static void test_4k_clear(void)
 {
-	union r1 r1;
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
 
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.cf = 1;
-	r1.reg.fsc = FSC_4K;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
 
 	report_prefix_push("4K");
 	memset(pagebuf, 42, PAGE_SIZE);
-	pfmf(r1.val, (unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
 	report("clear memory", !memcmp(pagebuf, pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE));
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
@@ -119,16 +88,16 @@ static void test_4k_clear(void)
 static void test_1m_clear(void)
 {
 	int i;
-	union r1 r1;
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
 	unsigned long sum = 0;
 
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.cf = 1;
-	r1.reg.fsc = FSC_1M;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_1M;
 
 	report_prefix_push("1M");
 	memset(pagebuf, 42, PAGE_SIZE * 256);
-	pfmf(r1.val, (unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
 	for (i = 0; i < PAGE_SIZE * 256; i++)
 		sum |= pagebuf[i];
 	report("clear memory", !sum);
-- 
2.17.0

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/4] s390x: Move pfmf to lib and make address void

[Thomas Huth]

On 28/08/2019 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
> It's needed by other tests soon.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  lib/s390x/asm/mem.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  s390x/pfmf.c        | 57 +++++++++++----------------------------------
>  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/4] s390x: Storage key library functions now take void ptr addresses

[Janosch Frank]

Now all mem.h functions are consistent in how they take a memory
address. Also we have less casting in the future.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 lib/s390x/asm/mem.h |  9 +++------
 s390x/pfmf.c        |  4 ++--
 s390x/skey.c        | 24 +++++++++++-------------
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h b/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
index 9b8fd70..c78bfa2 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/mem.h
@@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ union skey {
 	uint8_t val;
 };
 
-static inline void set_storage_key(unsigned long addr,
-				   unsigned char skey,
-				   int nq)
+static inline void set_storage_key(void *addr, unsigned char skey, int nq)
 {
 	if (nq)
 		asm volatile(".insn rrf,0xb22b0000,%0,%1,8,0"
@@ -37,8 +35,7 @@ static inline void set_storage_key(unsigned long addr,
 		asm volatile("sske %0,%1" : : "d" (skey), "a" (addr));
 }
 
-static inline unsigned long set_storage_key_mb(unsigned long addr,
-					       unsigned char skey)
+static inline void *set_storage_key_mb(void *addr, unsigned char skey)
 {
 	assert(test_facility(8));
 
@@ -47,7 +44,7 @@ static inline unsigned long set_storage_key_mb(unsigned long addr,
 	return addr;
 }
 
-static inline unsigned char get_storage_key(unsigned long addr)
+static inline unsigned char get_storage_key(void *addr)
 {
 	unsigned char skey;
 
diff --git a/s390x/pfmf.c b/s390x/pfmf.c
index 9986624..0b3e70b 100644
--- a/s390x/pfmf.c
+++ b/s390x/pfmf.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static void test_4k_key(void)
 	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
 	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
 	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
-	skey.val = get_storage_key((unsigned long) pagebuf);
+	skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
 	report("set storage keys", skey.val == 0x30);
 	report_prefix_pop();
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
 	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
 	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
 	for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
-		skey.val = get_storage_key((unsigned long) pagebuf + i * PAGE_SIZE);
+		skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf + i * PAGE_SIZE);
 		skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
 		if (skey.val != 0x30) {
 			rp = false;
diff --git a/s390x/skey.c b/s390x/skey.c
index fd4fcc7..efc4eca 100644
--- a/s390x/skey.c
+++ b/s390x/skey.c
@@ -18,14 +18,12 @@
 
 
 static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
-const unsigned long page0 = (unsigned long)pagebuf;
-const unsigned long page1 = (unsigned long)(pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE);
 
 static void test_set_mb(void)
 {
 	union skey skey, ret1, ret2;
-	unsigned long addr = 0x10000 - 2 * PAGE_SIZE;
-	unsigned long end = 0x10000;
+	void *addr = (void *)0x10000 - 2 * PAGE_SIZE;
+	void *end = (void *)0x10000;
 
 	/* Multi block support came with EDAT 1 */
 	if (!test_facility(8))
@@ -46,10 +44,10 @@ static void test_chg(void)
 	union skey skey1, skey2;
 
 	skey1.val = 0x30;
-	set_storage_key(page0, skey1.val, 0);
-	skey1.val = get_storage_key(page0);
+	set_storage_key(pagebuf, skey1.val, 0);
+	skey1.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	pagebuf[0] = 3;
-	skey2.val = get_storage_key(page0);
+	skey2.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	report("chg bit test", !skey1.str.ch && skey2.str.ch);
 }
 
@@ -58,9 +56,9 @@ static void test_set(void)
 	union skey skey, ret;
 
 	skey.val = 0x30;
-	ret.val = get_storage_key(page0);
-	set_storage_key(page0, skey.val, 0);
-	ret.val = get_storage_key(page0);
+	ret.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
+	set_storage_key(pagebuf, skey.val, 0);
+	ret.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	/*
 	 * For all set tests we only test the ACC and FP bits. RF and
 	 * CH are set by the machine for memory references and changes
@@ -103,11 +101,11 @@ static void test_priv(void)
 	report_prefix_push("sske");
 	expect_pgm_int();
 	enter_pstate();
-	set_storage_key(page0, 0x30, 0);
+	set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x30, 0);
 	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
 	report_prefix_pop();
 
-	skey.val = get_storage_key(page0);
+	skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	report("skey did not change on exception", skey.str.acc != 3);
 
 	report_prefix_push("iske");
@@ -117,7 +115,7 @@ static void test_priv(void)
 	} else {
 		expect_pgm_int();
 		enter_pstate();
-		get_storage_key(page0);
+		get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 		check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
 	}
 	report_prefix_pop();
-- 
2.17.0

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/4] s390x: Bump march to zEC12

[Janosch Frank]

TCG has majored a lot and can now support many newer instructions, so
there's no need to compile with the ancient march z900.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 s390x/Makefile | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index 76db0bb..07bd353 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ CFLAGS += -std=gnu99
 CFLAGS += -ffreestanding
 CFLAGS += -I $(SRCDIR)/lib -I $(SRCDIR)/lib/s390x -I lib
 CFLAGS += -O2
-CFLAGS += -march=z900
+CFLAGS += -march=zEC12
 CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
 LDFLAGS += -nostdlib -Wl,--build-id=none
 
-- 
2.17.0

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/4] s390x: Bump march to zEC12

[Thomas Huth]

On 28/08/2019 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
> TCG has majored a lot and can now support many newer instructions, so
> there's no need to compile with the ancient march z900.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  s390x/Makefile | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
> index 76db0bb..07bd353 100644
> --- a/s390x/Makefile
> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ CFLAGS += -std=gnu99
>  CFLAGS += -ffreestanding
>  CFLAGS += -I $(SRCDIR)/lib -I $(SRCDIR)/lib/s390x -I lib
>  CFLAGS += -O2
> -CFLAGS += -march=z900
> +CFLAGS += -march=zEC12
>  CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
>  LDFLAGS += -nostdlib -Wl,--build-id=none

Works with the QEMU in the gitlab-ci, so:

Tested-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/4] s390x: Add storage key removal facility

[Janosch Frank]

The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
key.

Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
(pfmf) or not at all (skey).

Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 s390x/Makefile |   1 +
 s390x/pfmf.c   |  10 ++++
 s390x/skey.c   |   5 ++
 s390x/skrf.c   | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c

diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index 07bd353..96033dd 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/iep.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/cpumodel.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/diag288.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/stsi.elf
+tests += $(TEST_DIR)/skrf.elf
 tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
 
 all: directories test_cases test_cases_binary
diff --git a/s390x/pfmf.c b/s390x/pfmf.c
index 0b3e70b..e81f7c5 100644
--- a/s390x/pfmf.c
+++ b/s390x/pfmf.c
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static void test_4k_key(void)
 	union skey skey;
 
 	report_prefix_push("4K");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto out;
+	}
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
 	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
@@ -42,6 +46,7 @@ static void test_4k_key(void)
 	skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
 	report("set storage keys", skey.val == 0x30);
+out:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
 
@@ -53,6 +58,10 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
 	union skey skey;
 
 	report_prefix_push("1M");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto out;
+	}
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
 	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_1M;
@@ -67,6 +76,7 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
 		}
 	}
 	report("set storage keys", rp);
+out:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
 
diff --git a/s390x/skey.c b/s390x/skey.c
index efc4eca..5020e99 100644
--- a/s390x/skey.c
+++ b/s390x/skey.c
@@ -126,10 +126,15 @@ static void test_priv(void)
 int main(void)
 {
 	report_prefix_push("skey");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto done;
+	}
 	test_priv();
 	test_set();
 	test_set_mb();
 	test_chg();
+done:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 	return report_summary();
 }
diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e77ff35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/s390x/skrf.c
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+/*
+ * Storage key removal facility tests
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2019 IBM Corp
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
+ *
+ * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.
+ */
+#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <asm/mem.h>
+
+static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
+
+static void test_facilities(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("facilities");
+	report("!10", !test_facility(10));
+	report("!14", !test_facility(14));
+	report("!66", !test_facility(66));
+	report("!145", !test_facility(145));
+	report("!149", !test_facility(140));
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_skey(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("sske");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x30, 0);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	report_prefix_pop();
+	report_prefix_push("iske");
+	get_storage_key(pagebuf);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_pfmf(void)
+{
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
+
+	report_prefix_push("pfmf");
+	r1.val = 0;
+	r1.reg.sk = 1;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
+	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_psw_key(void)
+{
+	uint64_t psw_mask = extract_psw_mask() | 0xF0000000000000UL;
+
+	report_prefix_push("psw key");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	load_psw_mask(psw_mask);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_mvcos(void)
+{
+	uint64_t r3 = 64;
+	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
+	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
+	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
+	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
+
+	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile("mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]"
+		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
+		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
+		     : "cc", "memory");
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_spka(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("spka");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile("spka	0xf0(0)\n");
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_tprot(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("tprot");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile("tprot	%[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
+		     : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+int main(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("skrf");
+	if (!test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility not available\n");
+		goto done;
+	}
+
+	test_facilities();
+	test_skey();
+	test_pfmf();
+	test_psw_key();
+	test_mvcos();
+	test_spka();
+	test_tprot();
+
+done:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+	return report_summary();
+}
-- 
2.17.0

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/4] s390x: Add storage key removal facility

[Thomas Huth]

On 28/08/2019 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
> instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
> key.
> 
> Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
> (pfmf) or not at all (skey).
> 
> Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
> affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  s390x/Makefile |   1 +
>  s390x/pfmf.c   |  10 ++++
>  s390x/skey.c   |   5 ++
>  s390x/skrf.c   | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c
[...]
> +static void test_mvcos(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t r3 = 64;
> +	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
> +	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
> +	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
> +	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	asm volatile("mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]"
> +		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
> +		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)

Just a nit: I think you could write "*dst" instead of "*(dst)" and
"*src" instead of "*(src)".

> +		     : "cc", "memory");
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_spka(void)
> +{
> +	report_prefix_push("spka");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	asm volatile("spka	0xf0(0)\n");
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_tprot(void)
> +{
> +	report_prefix_push("tprot");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	asm volatile("tprot	%[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
> +		     : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +	report_prefix_push("skrf");
> +	if (!test_facility(169)) {
> +		report_skip("storage key removal facility not available\n");
> +		goto done;
> +	}
> +
> +	test_facilities();
> +	test_skey();
> +	test_pfmf();
> +	test_psw_key();
> +	test_mvcos();
> +	test_spka();
> +	test_tprot();
> +
> +done:
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +	return report_summary();
> +}

I can't say much about the technical details here (since I don't have
the doc for that "removal facility"), but apart from that, the patch
looks fine to me now.

Acked-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

(and I'll wait one or two more days for additional reviews before
queuing the patches)

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/4] s390x: Add storage key removal facility

[Janosch Frank]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2761 bytes --]

On 8/28/19 2:02 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 28/08/2019 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
>> instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
>> key.
>>
>> Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
>> (pfmf) or not at all (skey).
>>
>> Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
>> affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  s390x/Makefile |   1 +
>>  s390x/pfmf.c   |  10 ++++
>>  s390x/skey.c   |   5 ++
>>  s390x/skrf.c   | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  4 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c
> [...]
>> +static void test_mvcos(void)
>> +{
>> +	uint64_t r3 = 64;
>> +	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
>> +	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
>> +	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
>> +	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	asm volatile("mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]"
>> +		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
>> +		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
> 
> Just a nit: I think you could write "*dst" instead of "*(dst)" and
> "*src" instead of "*(src)".
> 
>> +		     : "cc", "memory");
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_spka(void)
>> +{
>> +	report_prefix_push("spka");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	asm volatile("spka	0xf0(0)\n");
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_tprot(void)
>> +{
>> +	report_prefix_push("tprot");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	asm volatile("tprot	%[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
>> +		     : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>> +int main(void)
>> +{
>> +	report_prefix_push("skrf");
>> +	if (!test_facility(169)) {
>> +		report_skip("storage key removal facility not available\n");
>> +		goto done;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	test_facilities();
>> +	test_skey();
>> +	test_pfmf();
>> +	test_psw_key();
>> +	test_mvcos();
>> +	test_spka();
>> +	test_tprot();
>> +
>> +done:
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +	return report_summary();
>> +}
> 
> I can't say much about the technical details here (since I don't have
> the doc for that "removal facility"), but apart from that, the patch
> looks fine to me now.
> 
> Acked-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> 
> (and I'll wait one or two more days for additional reviews before
> queuing the patches)
> 
Great, thank you!


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]