From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43172 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727135AbfKOL3X (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 06:29:23 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAFBIXFw081031 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 06:29:22 -0500 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w9ntp26qx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 06:29:22 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:29:21 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC 31/37] KVM: s390: protvirt: Add diag 308 subcode 8 - 10 handling References: <20191024114059.102802-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191024114059.102802-32-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Janosch Frank Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:29:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jB3xc5ru6Joy6ApSC1UgSyEyV90vV5YLH" Message-Id: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Huth , 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 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --jB3xc5ru6Joy6ApSC1UgSyEyV90vV5YLH Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nsmLRT3e0diBm61H0p7aqVJhYtEVplJnG" --nsmLRT3e0diBm61H0p7aqVJhYtEVplJnG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/15/19 11:27 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15/11/2019 11.20, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 11/15/19 11:04 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 24/10/2019 13.40, Janosch Frank wrote: >>>> If the host initialized the Ultravisor, we can set stfle bit 161 >>>> (protected virtual IPL enhancements facility), which indicates, that= >>>> the IPL subcodes 8, 9 and are valid. These subcodes are used by a >>>> normal guest to set/retrieve a IPIB of type 5 and transition into >>>> protected mode. >>>> >>>> Once in protected mode, the VM will loose the facility bit, as each >>> >>> So should the bit be cleared in the host code again? ... I don't see >>> this happening in this patch? >>> >>> Thomas >> >> No, KVM doesn't report stfle facilities in protected mode and we would= >> need to add it again in normal mode so just clearing it would be >> pointless. In protected mode 8-10 do not intercept, so there's nothing= >> we need to do. >=20 > Ah, ok, that's what I've missed. Maybe replace "the VM will loose the > facility bit" with "the ultravisor will conceal the facility bit" ? >=20 > Thomas >=20 Sure --nsmLRT3e0diBm61H0p7aqVJhYtEVplJnG-- --jB3xc5ru6Joy6ApSC1UgSyEyV90vV5YLH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEwGNS88vfc9+v45Yq41TmuOI4ufgFAl3OjA0ACgkQ41TmuOI4 ufh5Ig/9H7AjtYgpl1363tWmKonMGds+RIqETYgGcNd23xQ4zRYgXdZpPBw5fJxw GVO4iDx3s4Am2IEqHLIvbzoFqywH9YeTHIu+moOxL091usM1UMUb+NIkg5Ny09o9 hANHMzsbKo5OiPXy+OO+T0L93skU6RVlqXiXj/QIbXoeAI2Apm27vgoBWVHDcjNl k7UTUIb8hMqTa32xjImOTHomhiohYyHYSVGoPgI33rA7nl3iFgkB0WaidwfvSaOZ 7q0/uQrYXe5+/Bd68nhhLiF+Ak+yC6P/pRo/7dt/EBZg7rnQRsEDwxx234mBGAw9 QKDPMes742RjIckuLc4octH4ZiC2Ses0ltkYjPaW3nPqMcByf4YLPExlZXdtNr8D E0VOpbDMSxfGZ0nH9mjuQcwXSpuKWwh2nl8U+5JH8QooNn0l0EPA+CafvFDASZN1 OgtqbDq8FG6D8cC3FxJ2M7kgYsikrg1cVGJa7qBrdfmXFEtE/GeP3VKWpY/TnwlK NrPK3gFX07tSiH3iMhivku5NLXSutBDb3yX+2O0RP8vSxLtOxj9UxOCwbfQP6OAf WK1N1gsZCFMFohvOHRo9udVjaNqE01DHs9JAFdu1LbKqwNRLPee3+gyo7Smm2Hkm htoRMUdKPMleuvFl2GF/ZegGe9wc5ra5uSUH98KIPY+Ce4lHfUM= =2s8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jB3xc5ru6Joy6ApSC1UgSyEyV90vV5YLH--