From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"Collin L. Walling" <walling@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] S390 bios breaks in qemu 2.10.rc3
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:13:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170824171355.29d1ec32.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2a1b182-83a9-2259-27f9-68b61b5061d5@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:05:08 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is an issue in QEMU bios which is exposed by commit
>
> commit 198c0d1f9df8c429502cb744fc26b6ba6e71db74
> Author: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu Jul 27 17:48:42 2017 +0200
>
> s390x/css: check ccw address validity
>
> According to the PoP channel command words (CCW) must be doubleword
> aligned and 31 bit addressable for format 1 and 24 bit addressable for
> format 0 CCWs.
>
> If the channel subsystem encounters a ccw address which does not
> satisfy
> this alignment requirement a program-check condition is recognised.
>
> The situation with 31 bit addressable is a bit more complicated:
> both the
> ORB and a format 1 CCW TIC hold the address of (the rest of) the
> channel
> program, that is the address of the next CCW in a word, and the PoP
> mandates that bit 0 of that word shall be zero -- or a program-check
> condition is to be recognized -- and does not belong to the field
> holding
> the ccw address.
>
> Since in code the corresponding fields span across the whole word
> (unlike
> in PoP where these are defined as 31 bit wide) we can check this by
> applying a mask. The 24 addressable case isn't affecting TIC
> because the
> address is composed of a halfword and a byte portion (no additional
> zero
> bit requirements) and just slightly complicates the ORB case where also
> bits 1-7 need to be zero.
>
> The same requirements (especially n-bit addressability) apply to the
> ccw addresses generated while chaining.
>
> Let's make our CSS implementation follow the AR more closely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Message-Id: <20170727154842.23427-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>
>
> It looks like the bios does not create a double word aligned CCW.
> Looking at the bios code we the CCW1 struct is not aligned
>
> /* channel command word (type 1) */
> struct ccw1 {
> __u8 cmd_code;
> __u8 flags;
> __u16 count;
> __u32 cda;
> } __attribute__ ((packed));
>
> and it looks like the compiler does not guarantee a doubleword alignment.
:(
>
> The weird thing about it is I see it break in one of my system and works
> fine in another system. Trying a simple fix of aligning the struct also
> doesn't seem to work all the time.
I have not seen this problem on any of the systems I tested on (well, I
would not have merged this if I did...) - RHEL 7 and F26. Do we need a
dynamic allocation to guarantee alignment?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-24 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-24 15:05 [Qemu-devel] S390 bios breaks in qemu 2.10.rc3 Farhan Ali
2017-08-24 15:13 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2017-08-24 15:35 ` Thomas Huth
2017-08-24 15:47 ` Halil Pasic
2017-08-24 15:50 ` Thomas Huth
2017-08-24 15:53 ` Farhan Ali
2017-08-24 16:02 ` Halil Pasic
2017-08-24 18:15 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-24 16:07 ` Peter Maydell
2017-08-24 17:38 ` Farhan Ali
2017-08-24 18:14 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-25 7:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-25 8:21 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-25 8:29 ` Cornelia Huck
2017-08-28 7:18 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-29 9:35 ` Thomas Huth
2017-08-29 10:28 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-31 17:44 ` Michael Roth
2017-09-01 7:06 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2017-09-01 14:03 ` Michael Roth
2017-08-25 14:38 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2017-08-24 15:37 ` Halil Pasic
2017-08-24 18:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-08-24 19:56 ` Farhan Ali
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=20170824171355.29d1ec32.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=walling@linux.vnet.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).