Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying, failing memop

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 12.05.22 18:26, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 12.05.22 um 17:50 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
>> On 12.05.22 15:51, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 12.05.22 um 15:22 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
>>>> On 12.05.22 15:10, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>>>>> If user space uses a memop to emulate an instruction and that
>>>>> memop fails, the execution of the instruction ends.
>>>>> Instruction execution can end in different ways, one of which is
>>>>> suppression, which requires that the instruction execute like a no-op.
>>>>> A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key
>>>>> protection may have modified guest memory, as a result, the likely
>>>>> correct ending is termination. Therefore, do not indicate a
>>>>> suppressing instruction ending in this case.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is possibly problematic handling.
>>>>
>>>> In TCG we stumbled in similar issues in the past for MVC when crossing
>>>> page boundaries. Failing after modifying the first page already
>>>> seriously broke some user space, because the guest would retry the
>>>> instruction after fixing up the fault reason on the second page: if
>>>> source and destination operands overlap, you'll be in trouble because
>>>> the input parameters already changed.
>>>>
>>>> For this reason, in TCG we make sure that all accesses are valid before
>>>> starting modifications.
>>>>
>>>> See target/s390x/tcg/mem_helper.c:do_helper_mvc with access_prepare()
>>>> and friends as an example.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I don't know how to tackle that for KVM, I just wanted to raise
>>>> awareness that injecting an interrupt after modifying page content is
>>>> possible dodgy and dangerous.
>>>
>>> this is really special and only for key protection crossing pages.
>>> Its been done since the 70ies in that way on z/VM. The architecture
>>> is and was always written in a way to allow termination for this
>>> case for hypervisors.
>>
>> Just so I understand correctly: all instructions that a hypervisor with
>> hardware virtualization is supposed to emulate are "written in a way to
>> allow termination", correct? That makes things a lot easier.
> 
> Only for key protection. Key protection can always be terminating no matter
> what the instruction says. This is historical baggage - key protection was
> resulting in abends - killing the process. So it does not matter if we
> provide the extra info as in enhanced suppression on protection as nobody
> is making use of that (apart from debuggers maybe).

Got it, makes sense then. Thanks for clarifying!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb