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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 C679BC43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9521421823 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="AAapc3Hp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9521421823 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:58928 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icvQJ-0005ka-Ft for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:00:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46393) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icvDV-0007wd-R9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:47:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icvDU-0004Xw-Gh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:47:05 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:25966 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icvDU-0004TP-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:47:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575568023; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nDcbxzbOMA4nf42c5ZWc09yQqLCECm9H7b9z/f14cUY=; b=AAapc3HpKMIwQWkm5aP2sRPswo/t4jAKc9c3Kp+UX404sifpbo8rBphyGlmFTSjFjmlmvU iZXo7bCtwGFVzHI6yJJNE+OrkLKjjIZxa+WwZszvle9vP11FjGuhVaCVTlNv/eez6KKGgo cMlZpOI0mabtIUW31lw9AreNvic7LsU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-196-f6jDHjppOY-mqln1pcXhFA-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:46:59 -0500 X-MC-Unique: f6jDHjppOY-mqln1pcXhFA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A80D800D5E; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (unknown [10.36.118.1]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FCC19488; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:46:37 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Janosch Frank Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] s390x: protvirt: KVM intercept changes Message-ID: <20191205184637.4e6f4d23.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3cdbba69-c465-f2ce-d3e4-15e0b8d1218e@linux.ibm.com> References: <20191129094809.26684-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191129094809.26684-7-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191205181532.46bee55c.cohuck@redhat.com> <3cdbba69-c465-f2ce-d3e4-15e0b8d1218e@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/9l.JmnWFa2O_0vpL1tJqkQM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.120 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --Sig_/9l.JmnWFa2O_0vpL1tJqkQM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:34:32 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 12/5/19 6:15 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 04:48:02 -0500 > > Janosch Frank wrote: > > =20 > >> Secure guests no longer intercept with code 4 for an instruction > >> interception. Instead they have codes 104 and 108 for secure > >> instruction interception and secure instruction notification > >> respectively. > >> > >> The 104 mirrors the 4 interception. > >> > >> The 108 is a notification interception to let KVM and QEMU know that > >> something changed and we need to update tracking information or > >> perform specific tasks. It's currently taken for the following > >> instructions: > >> > >> * stpx (To inform about the changed prefix location) > >> * sclp (On incorrect SCCB values, so we can inject a IRQ) > >> * sigp (All but "stop and store status") > >> * diag308 (Subcodes 0/1) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > >> --- > >> target/s390x/kvm.c | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> @@ -1664,6 +1668,8 @@ static int handle_intercept(S390CPU *cpu) > >> (long)cs->kvm_run->psw_addr); > >> switch (icpt_code) { > >> case ICPT_INSTRUCTION: > >> + case ICPT_PV_INSTR: > >> + case ICPT_PV_INSTR_NOTIFICATION: > >> r =3D handle_instruction(cpu, run); =20 > >=20 > > I'm still a bit uneasy about going through the same path for both 104 > > and 108. How does the handler figure out whether it should emulate an > > instruction, or just process a notification? Is it guaranteed that a > > given instruction is always showing up as either a 104 or a 108, so > > that the handler can check the pv state? =20 >=20 > diag 308 subcode 0/1 are 108, but all other subcodes are defined as a > 104 (if they are an exit at all)... I think that's a reason to really split 108 from 4/104, or at least add an parameter... >=20 > >=20 > > [Even if that works, it still feels a bit unclean to me.] > > =20 > >> break; > >> case ICPT_PROGRAM: =20 > >=20 > > =20 >=20 >=20 --Sig_/9l.JmnWFa2O_0vpL1tJqkQM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl3pQn0ACgkQ3s9rk8bw L6+LNg/8DgmYj+mH0adbQFGcPj919e6QXab5X2igRtyBrhya8qEFICrAkXV74Lh9 hgvvTH5oi24De5kXvJSXXUmcRLVzD0Xc8g2aMQDd56QPPTVpj+NgAhpgwIYQ9RY7 L3TOfBrwxXX6eoUkrAXn63WMCEfkRLey7P4MvFyfTXIu/x8csBNP0ET18FkqBNLr V1uNTXeeltDw6xRxpL2Vj1DmWB/A0k8un5QQeXzW0EIrOl6+jHgo5xq1acGluOVr L/sEbmaHn5fFn+V3CNY6Rq1XR23BLLv0XDc48zZ/y9yYYAgM2FFD2fOzNQiFHDk3 vcQ1PR4OBeOOr+SJr2pUsObWie9fViKGc+At85OyycXIO3/xq4XnyjdjlAEDyRDX D1NpTb9SzUiwkIXcDmaKeheW9DtBp1ypZxXVBKS6AqLrXPgpeZ/AEIhkJ7l7G/ya Eyuw38yE1AouJTTLlvqFZKtj5w9gn0vgl8GgDsp5MMYvINNT8OxgiMGDxlpzh4mg eLxlMfQL7a65RF2UTzaHS1R+peqT9XvktSWxmYha1J7Rj/vHj5GYA+pIyS/3niR3 ob04pS1JBVYb3oNLCS7BvzWnyrq2c+sxM3bCGNlWb6Nvoajz/OkRZRHGeaj8sumJ LqrwJZDiPx/zXqHFzN8OAA/vgIMAfhBEAZTSVdvujmLYdm1JWmw= =D/cJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/9l.JmnWFa2O_0vpL1tJqkQM--