From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: s390: Fix skey emulation permission check
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:51:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171205105147.7efcf684.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0657b07a-cb1c-506b-eba3-1c0c9ea1e564@de.ibm.com>
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:39:26 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 10:13 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > This reminds me of something I stumbled upon the other day:
> >
> > handle_ri() and handle_gs() (both implemented in priv.c) don't seem to
> > have a check for PSTATE, yet they enable ri/gs before retrying the
> > instruction. Is that correct?
>
> The guarded storage ops (e3 49 and e3 4d) are problem state.
> Most of the ri instruction are as well, so problem state can enable RI
> interpretion.
>
> We could do some optimization to only enable RI if the
> instruction would enable in for the guest (e.g. an inspection of the
> control block could leave RI disabled). On the other hand that would
> require to implement these instruction in KVM, which I would like
> to avoid. Right now we enable RI and re-drive the instruction.
It's probably not worth it, I think.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-05 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-05 8:33 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: s390: Fixes for 4.15 Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 8:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: s390: add SPDX identifiers to the remaining files Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 8:33 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: s390: Remove redundant license text Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 16:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-12-05 8:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: s390: mark irq_state.flags as non-usable Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 8:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: s390: Fix skey emulation permission check Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 8:57 ` Thomas Huth
2017-12-05 9:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-12-05 9:32 ` Janosch Frank
2017-12-05 9:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-12-05 9:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-05 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2017-12-05 16:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-12-05 18:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-12-06 8:37 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: s390: Fixes for 4.15 (via kvm/master) Christian Borntraeger
2017-12-06 8:37 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: s390: Fix skey emulation permission check Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171205105147.7efcf684.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).