On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:43:24 -0500
Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> We do not always have the SIE intercept code handy at each place where
> we do emulation. Unfortunately emulation for secure guests often
> differ slightly from normal emulation and we need to make decisions
> based on the protected state of the VCPU.
>
> Let's sync the protected state and make it available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h | 1 +
> target/s390x/cpu.h | 1 +
> target/s390x/kvm.c | 4 ++++
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h b/linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h
> index 41976d33f0..7c46cf6078 100644
> --- a/linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h
> +++ b/linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h
> @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@ struct kvm_guest_debug_arch {
> #define KVM_SYNC_GSCB (1UL << 9)
> #define KVM_SYNC_BPBC (1UL << 10)
> #define KVM_SYNC_ETOKEN (1UL << 11)
> +#define KVM_SYNC_PV (1UL << 12)
That should go into the previous patch (will be picked up by header
sync).
> /* length and alignment of the sdnx as a power of two */
> #define SDNXC 8
> #define SDNXL (1UL << SDNXC)
> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.h b/target/s390x/cpu.h
> index 17460ed7b3..a787221772 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.h
> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.h
> @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ struct CPUS390XState {
>
> /* Fields up to this point are cleared by a CPU reset */
> struct {} end_reset_fields;
> + bool pv; /* protected virtualization */
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> uint32_t core_id; /* PoP "CPU address", same as cpu_index */
> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> index c24c869e77..418154ccfe 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> @@ -676,6 +676,10 @@ int kvm_arch_get_registers(CPUState *cs)
> env->etoken_extension = cs->kvm_run->s.regs.etoken_extension;
> }
>
> + if (can_sync_regs(cs, KVM_SYNC_PV)) {
> + env->pv = !!cs->kvm_run->s.regs.pv;
> + }
> +
> /* pfault parameters */
> if (can_sync_regs(cs, KVM_SYNC_PFAULT)) {
> env->pfault_token = cs->kvm_run->s.regs.pft;
As you add a new field to the cpu state... you probably can't migrate
protected guests, so you don't need a new vmstate subsection?
