From: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 11:23:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d879574f-176f-1403-54dd-08911cbfc90a@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190506164710.5fe0b6c8.cohuck@redhat.com>
On 5/6/19 10:47 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:49:06 +0200
> Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Per the POPs [1], when processing an interrupt the SCSW.CPA field of an
>> IRB generally points to 8 bytes after the last CCW that was executed
>> (there are exceptions, but this is the most common behavior).
>>
>> In the case of an error, this points us to the first un-executed CCW
>> in the chain. But in the case of normal I/O, the address points beyond
>> the end of the chain. While the guest generally only cares about this
>> when possibly restarting a channel program after error recovery, we
>> should convert the address even in the good scenario so that we provide
>> a consistent, valid, response upon I/O completion.
>>
>> [1] Figure 16-6 in SA22-7832-11. The footnotes in that table also state
>> that this is true even if the resulting address is invalid or protected,
>> but moving to the end of the guest chain should not be a surprise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c
>> index 384b3987eeb4..f86da78eaeaa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c
>> @@ -870,7 +870,7 @@ void cp_update_scsw(struct channel_program *cp, union scsw *scsw)
>> */
>> list_for_each_entry(chain, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) {
>> ccw_head = (u32)(u64)chain->ch_ccw;
>> - if (is_cpa_within_range(cpa, ccw_head, chain->ch_len)) {
>> + if (is_cpa_within_range(cpa, ccw_head, chain->ch_len + 1)) {
>
> Maybe add a comment
>
> /* On successful execution, cpa points just beyond the end of the chain. */
>
> or so, to avoid head-scratching and PoP-reading in the future?
And deny future visitors the confusion? :)
Good point; added.
>
>> /*
>> * (cpa - ccw_head) is the offset value of the host
>> * physical ccw to its chain head.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-06 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-03 13:49 [PATCH v1 0/7] s390: vfio-ccw fixes Eric Farman
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 1/7] s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain Eric Farman
2019-05-06 14:47 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-06 15:23 ` Eric Farman [this message]
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 2/7] s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd Eric Farman
2019-05-06 14:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-06 16:36 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-07 8:32 ` Pierre Morel
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 3/7] s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces Eric Farman
2019-05-08 10:43 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-08 13:25 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-08 13:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 4/7] s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array Eric Farman
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 5/7] s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw Eric Farman
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 6/7] s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers Eric Farman
2019-05-06 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-06 15:40 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-03 13:49 ` [PATCH 7/7] s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes Eric Farman
2019-05-06 12:56 ` Pierre Morel
2019-05-06 15:39 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-06 20:47 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-07 8:52 ` Pierre Morel
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-08 9:22 ` Pierre Morel
2019-05-08 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-08 19:38 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-10 11:47 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-10 14:24 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-14 14:29 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-14 18:29 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-06 15:37 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-06 15:46 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-06 16:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-05-06 16:25 ` Eric Farman
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Cornelia Huck
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=d879574f-176f-1403-54dd-08911cbfc90a@linux.ibm.com \
--to=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alifm@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.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