From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:28904 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727264AbfKOLQG (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 06:16:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC 27/37] KVM: s390: protvirt: SIGP handling References: <20191024114059.102802-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191024114059.102802-28-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <64374089-8c38-e7b3-7ebf-b9da0aa0dfa2@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:15:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191024114059.102802-28-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, gor@linux.ibm.com On 24/10/2019 13.40, Janosch Frank wrote: > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > --- > arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > index 37cb62bc261b..a89738e4f761 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static int handle_stop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > =09if (!stop_pending) > =09=09return 0; > =20 > -=09if (flags & KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS) { > +=09if (flags & KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS && > +=09 !kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { > =09=09rc =3D kvm_s390_vcpu_store_status(vcpu, > =09=09=09=09=09=09KVM_S390_STORE_STATUS_NOADDR); > =09=09if (rc) Can this still happen at all that we get here with KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS in the protected case? I'd rather expect that SIGP is completely handled by the UV already, so userspace should have no need to inject a SIGP_STOP anymore? Or did I get that wrong? Anyway, I guess it can not hurt to add this check anyway, so: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth