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 4F54CC43603 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:20:54 +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 1A575206C3 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="fAw40+MU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1A575206C3 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]:39588 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1idFPY-0004iv-On for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:20:52 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43835) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1idEeZ-00021q-70 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1idEeX-0007xw-Tz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:32:19 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:52347 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1idEeV-0007tP-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:32:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575642733; 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=CdM0/clrngtCdjTfFct9BH5736Cv3YIQ9HaUbJP4ixo=; b=fAw40+MUwZKV1mZ3p/PY3h9xx97K1EcDMTXukkDiMYevZugcRuMX/BMH/uhFzM2HAaD4hb CRXORD/5z3NCIqBDqHoyP8aoRAi4VOtoMfXQXTUagtY3oDgj1oniV8UH602On2ynzMADfk IY7R6JoB6MlYS2PqJ9Xuz4rU6UWQfCQ= 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-47-9JzSBnOCM5ehmEsYcNWePw-1; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 03:29:30 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9JzSBnOCM5ehmEsYcNWePw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98E60107ACC7; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-245.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.245]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77C25D9C9; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:29:13 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Janosch Frank Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] s390x: protvirt: KVM intercept changes Message-ID: <20191206092913.3af251dd.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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> <20191205184637.4e6f4d23.cohuck@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/GnMCouvjfL_nGKWxvpxra3Y"; 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: 205.139.110.61 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_/GnMCouvjfL_nGKWxvpxra3Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:44:52 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 12/5/19 6:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:34:32 +0100 > > Janosch Frank wrote: > > =20 > >> On 12/5/19 6:15 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: =20 > >>> 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(+) > >>>> =20 > > =20 > >>>> @@ -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 > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> diag 308 subcode 0/1 are 108, but all other subcodes are defined as a > >> 104 (if they are an exit at all)... =20 > >=20 > > I think that's a reason to really split 108 from 4/104, or at least add > > an parameter... =20 >=20 > And still call the diag 308 handler or have separate handlers? I'd probably split it into a "normal" one and one for pv special handling... does that make sense? --Sig_/GnMCouvjfL_nGKWxvpxra3Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl3qEVkACgkQ3s9rk8bw L69new//aaXr5qFiRr2CHdB3/qZ9Nch3T/pDwLTz42/TCIR2R5xz84PHCoIYQFVi MbGvubJVSINVZo7VuGoRcO/Dwe3H/W9DWlwtjQyX4UoOYnyNd5HT3SDbxQUQoax8 hnwq0zxcNQhxNYgpQQ0CbmvZmAueHDnM/Ur+DSBoSueJ4a8Rn3o7ZEg/s/r4JTWd JhXkCyEibAB3+TfeDHKy7IiVPMmF6KNaTq0hE9AZvvn7Xwt+SqMpbkV94VgftACe nYq4K7OuahTwsBMkqRVlwS5G3z31hqwRV1wnvWrq0W76uA7R8qwQXYq6ELjjxRyO 7XIT3oOd+asB22IBIiLafd0hseGTXaPIlmy+rKmiZBKZ8OTlG+9aYp6DKuLlgJYN 0c5tnE3W6a9fkcHLcBAw1giLZIT9eJiS4+JwYBCobegYyRodvH83ddYGpVq44M03 oKs9RwMlOpSUqkHuvTj3pOGwGG2oS8cmXNX7q4KAKHMTOljVkN2OPDu5bqP9dTgu 0vmnh1BA4gz1BkiTA+EQG6wJGmKDqMozxiUXhnkF8AtPUi3+G6y66AkOphe+X1/5 JiThZo2RIo9KEd0YJDamKzeWJooY8oPmgsqrIgg/rkkl5Gc5WOgDB5wz7mEf9G2B Coh+WYfDxyY+gk4HCTDvIUMKl70/mE2LZs3fb5KtgbxykByNeP4= =XUcx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/GnMCouvjfL_nGKWxvpxra3Y--