From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEB0C43219 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19D52075E for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728845AbfD2QuM (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:50:12 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:56406 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728681AbfD2QuL (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:50:11 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3TGgKpv032742 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:50:10 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2s63hnc06a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:50:10 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:50:08 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:50:05 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x3TGo4rD38994060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:04 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AF011C052; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE7611C04A; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.152.224.116]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:50:02 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Pierre Morel Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, akrowiak@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] s390: ap: implement PAPQ AQIC interception in kernel In-Reply-To: <1556283688-556-4-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> References: <1556283688-556-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1556283688-556-4-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19042916-4275-0000-0000-0000032F9E92 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19042916-4276-0000-0000-0000383EF4DA Message-Id: <20190429185002.6041eecc.pasic@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-29_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=867 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904290114 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:01:27 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > +static struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_setirq(struct vfio_ap_queue *q) > +{ > + struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic_gisa = {}; > + struct ap_queue_status status = {}; > + struct kvm_s390_gisa *gisa; > + struct kvm *kvm; > + unsigned long h_nib, h_pfn; > + int ret; > + > + q->a_pfn = q->a_nib >> PAGE_SHIFT; > + ret = vfio_pin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev), &q->a_pfn, 1, > + IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE, &h_pfn); > + switch (ret) { > + case 1: > + break; > + case -EINVAL: > + case -E2BIG: > + status.response_code = AP_RESPONSE_INVALID_ADDRESS; > + /* Fallthrough */ > + default: > + return status; Can we actually hit the default label? AFICT you would return an all-zero status, i.e. status.response_code == 0 'Normal completion'. > + } > + > + kvm = q->matrix_mdev->kvm; > + gisa = kvm->arch.gisa_int.origin; > + > + h_nib = (h_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | (q->a_nib & ~PAGE_MASK); > + aqic_gisa.gisc = q->a_isc; > + aqic_gisa.isc = kvm_s390_gisc_register(kvm, q->a_isc); > + aqic_gisa.ir = 1; > + aqic_gisa.gisa = gisa->next_alert >> 4; Why gisa->next_alert? Isn't this supposed to get set to gisa origin (without some bits on the left)? > + > + status = ap_aqic(q->apqn, aqic_gisa, (void *)h_nib); > + switch (status.response_code) { > + case AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL: > + /* See if we did clear older IRQ configuration */ > + if (q->p_pfn) > + vfio_unpin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev), > + &q->p_pfn, 1); > + if (q->p_isc != VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID) > + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(kvm, q->p_isc); > + q->p_pfn = q->a_pfn; > + q->p_isc = q->a_isc; > + break; > + case AP_RESPONSE_OTHERWISE_CHANGED: > + /* We could not modify IRQ setings: clear new configuration */ > + vfio_unpin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev), &q->a_pfn, 1); > + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(kvm, q->a_isc); Hm, see below. Wouldn't you want to set a_isc to VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID? > + break; > + default: /* Fall Through */ Is it 'break' or is it 'Fall Through'? > + pr_warn("%s: apqn %04x: response: %02x\n", __func__, q->apqn, > + status.response_code); > + vfio_ap_free_irq_data(q); > + break; > + } > + > + return status; > +}