From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:58814 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726225AbgBRJdi (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:33:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 28/42] KVM: s390: protvirt: Add program exception injection References: <20200214222658.12946-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20200214222658.12946-29-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <0911c8c1-0877-047b-0da5-4c7f79aef3ae@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:33:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200214222658.12946-29-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank Cc: KVM , Cornelia Huck , Thomas Huth , Ulrich Weigand , Claudio Imbrenda , linux-s390 , Michael Mueller , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank On 14.02.20 23:26, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > From: Janosch Frank > > Only two program exceptions can be injected for a protected guest: > specification and operand. > > For both, a code needs to be specified in the interrupt injection > control of the state description, as the guest prefix page is not > accessible to KVM for such guests. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth > [borntraeger@de.ibm.com: patch merging, splitting, fixing] > Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger > --- > arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > index 3e160d9a214f..7a10096fa204 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > @@ -836,6 +836,21 @@ static int __must_check __deliver_external_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return rc ? -EFAULT : 0; > } > > +static int __deliver_prog_pv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 code) > +{ > + switch (code) { > + case PGM_SPECIFICATION: > + vcpu->arch.sie_block->iictl = IICTL_CODE_SPECIFICATION; > + break; > + case PGM_OPERAND: > + vcpu->arch.sie_block->iictl = IICTL_CODE_OPERAND; > + break; > + default: > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > static int __must_check __deliver_prog(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct kvm_s390_local_interrupt *li = &vcpu->arch.local_int; > @@ -856,6 +871,9 @@ static int __must_check __deliver_prog(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > trace_kvm_s390_deliver_interrupt(vcpu->vcpu_id, KVM_S390_PROGRAM_INT, > pgm_info.code, 0); > > + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) Can we actually ever have PER set, and what would happen if so? Shouldn't we also return -EINVAL? > + return __deliver_prog_pv(vcpu, pgm_info.code & ~PGM_PER); > + > switch (pgm_info.code & ~PGM_PER) { > case PGM_AFX_TRANSLATION: > case PGM_ASX_TRANSLATION: > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb