On 11/21/19 4:11 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/11/2019 12.43, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> 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, but the 108 is a notification, that something
>> happened and the hypervisor might need to adjust its tracking data to
>> that fact. An example for that is the set prefix notification
>> interception, where KVM only reads the new prefix, but does not update
>> the prefix in the state description.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> target/s390x/kvm.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>> index 418154ccfe..58251c0229 100644
>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>> @@ -115,6 +115,8 @@
>> #define ICPT_CPU_STOP 0x28
>> #define ICPT_OPEREXC 0x2c
>> #define ICPT_IO 0x40
>> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR 0x68
>> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR_NOT 0x6c
>>
>> #define NR_LOCAL_IRQS 32
>> /*
>> @@ -151,6 +153,7 @@ static int cap_s390_irq;
>> static int cap_ri;
>> static int cap_gs;
>> static int cap_hpage_1m;
>> +static int cap_protvirt;
>>
>> static int active_cmma;
>>
>> @@ -336,6 +339,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
>> cap_async_pf = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ASYNC_PF);
>> cap_mem_op = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
>> cap_s390_irq = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_INJECT_IRQ);
>> + cap_protvirt = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED);
>>
>> if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_GMAP)
>> || !kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_COW)) {
>> @@ -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_NOT:
>> r = handle_instruction(cpu, run);
>
> Even if this works by default, my gut feeling tells me that it would be
> safer and cleaner to have a separate handler for this...
> Otherwise we might get surprising results if future machine generations
> intercept/notify for more or different instructions, I guess?
>
> However, it's just a gut feeling ... I really don't have much experience
> with this PV stuff yet ... what do the others here think?
>
> ThomasAdding a handle_instruction_pv doesn't hurt me too much. The default case can then do an error_report() and exit(1); PV was designed in a way that we can re-use as much code as possible, so I tried using the normal instruction handlers and only change as little as possible in the instructions themselves.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
