On 04.03.20 12:42, Janosch Frank wrote:
> For diag308 subcodes 8 - 10 we have a new ipib of type 5. The ipib
> holds the address and length of the secure execution header, as well
> as a list of guest components.
>
> Each component is a block of memory, for example kernel or initrd,
> which needs to be decrypted by the Ultravisor in order to run a
> protected VM. The secure execution header instructs the Ultravisor on
> how to handle the protected VM and its components.
>
> Subcodes 8 and 9 are similiar to 5 and 6 and subcode 10 will finally
> start the protected guest.
>
> Subcodes 8-10 are not valid in protected mode, we have to do a subcode
> 3 and then the 8 and 10 combination for a protected reboot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/ipl.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> hw/s390x/ipl.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> target/s390x/diag.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.c b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> index 9c1ecd423c..80c6ab233a 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> @@ -538,15 +538,55 @@ static bool is_virtio_scsi_device(IplParameterBlock
> *iplb)
> return is_virtio_ccw_device_of_type(iplb, VIRTIO_ID_SCSI);
> }
>
> +int s390_ipl_pv_check_components(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
What about making this
bool s390_ipl_pv_valid(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
and return true/false?
> +{
> + int i;
> + IPLBlockPV *ipib_pv = &iplb->pv;
nit: place "int i;" down here
> +
> + if (ipib_pv->num_comp == 0) {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ipib_pv->num_comp; i++) {
> + /* Addr must be 4k aligned */
> + if (ipib_pv->components[i].addr & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Tweak prefix is monotonously increasing with each component */
should that be "monotonically increasing" ?
> + if (i < ipib_pv->num_comp - 1 &&
> + ipib_pv->components[i].tweak_pref >
> + ipib_pv->components[i + 1].tweak_pref) {
and I assume "==" is valid then.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> void s390_ipl_update_diag308(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
> {
> S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>
> - ipl->iplb = *iplb;
> - ipl->iplb_valid = true;
> + if (iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_PV) {
> + ipl->iplb_pv = *iplb;
> + ipl->iplb_valid_pv = true;
> + } else {
> + ipl->iplb = *iplb;
> + ipl->iplb_valid = true;
> + }
> ipl->netboot = is_virtio_net_device(iplb);
> }
>
> +IplParameterBlock *s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure(void)
Why suddenly the "secure" ? s390_ipl_get_iplb_pv?
> +{
> + S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
> +
> + if (!ipl->iplb_valid_pv) {
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + return &ipl->iplb_pv;
> +}
> +
> IplParameterBlock *s390_ipl_get_iplb(void)
> {
> S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
> @@ -561,7 +601,8 @@ void s390_ipl_reset_request(CPUState *cs, enum s390_reset
> reset_type)
> {
> S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>
> - if (reset_type == S390_RESET_EXTERNAL || reset_type == S390_RESET_REIPL)
> {
> + if (reset_type == S390_RESET_EXTERNAL || reset_type == S390_RESET_REIPL
> ||
> + reset_type == S390_RESET_PV) {
What about a switch-case now instead?
> /* use CPU 0 for full resets */
> ipl->reset_cpu_index = 0;
> } else {
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> index d4813105db..04be63cee1 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,24 @@
> #include "cpu.h"
> #include "hw/qdev-core.h"
>
> +struct IPLBlockPVComp {
> + uint64_t tweak_pref;
> + uint64_t addr;
> + uint64_t size;
> +} QEMU_PACKED;
Do we need the packed here? All members are naturally aligned.
> +typedef struct IPLBlockPVComp IPLBlockPVComp;
> +
> +struct IPLBlockPV {
> + uint8_t reserved[87];
> + uint8_t version;
> + uint32_t reserved70;
> + uint32_t num_comp;
> + uint64_t pv_header_addr;
> + uint64_t pv_header_len;
> + struct IPLBlockPVComp components[];
> +} QEMU_PACKED;
Dito.
[...]
> uint64_t compat_bios_start_addr;
> bool enforce_bios;
> bool iplb_valid;
> + bool iplb_valid_pv;
I'd name this "iplb_pv_valid" to match "iplb_pv".
> bool netboot;
> /* reset related properties don't have to be migrated or reset */
> enum s390_reset reset_type;
> @@ -161,9 +185,11 @@ QEMU_BUILD_BUG_MSG(offsetof(S390IPLState, iplb) & 3,
> "alignment of iplb wrong");
>
> #define S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP 0x00
> #define S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW 0x02
> +#define S390_IPL_TYPE_PV 0x05
> #define S390_IPL_TYPE_QEMU_SCSI 0xff
>
> #define S390_IPLB_HEADER_LEN 8
> +#define S390_IPLB_MIN_PV_LEN 148
> #define S390_IPLB_MIN_CCW_LEN 200
> #define S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN 384
> #define S390_IPLB_MIN_QEMU_SCSI_LEN 200
> @@ -185,4 +211,10 @@ static inline bool iplb_valid_fcp(IplParameterBlock
> *iplb)
> iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP;
> }
>
> +static inline bool iplb_valid_pv(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
> +{
> + return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_PV_LEN &&
> + iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_PV;
> +}
> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/target/s390x/diag.c b/target/s390x/diag.c
> index b5aec06d6b..945b263f0a 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/diag.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/diag.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ int handle_diag_288(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1,
> uint64_t r3)
> #define DIAG_308_RC_OK 0x0001
> #define DIAG_308_RC_NO_CONF 0x0102
> #define DIAG_308_RC_INVALID 0x0402
> +#define DIAG_308_RC_NO_PV_CONF 0x0902
>
> #define DIAG308_RESET_MOD_CLR 0
> #define DIAG308_RESET_LOAD_NORM 1
> @@ -59,6 +60,9 @@ int handle_diag_288(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1,
> uint64_t r3)
> #define DIAG308_LOAD_NORMAL_DUMP 4
> #define DIAG308_SET 5
> #define DIAG308_STORE 6
> +#define DIAG308_PV_SET 8
> +#define DIAG308_PV_STORE 9
> +#define DIAG308_PV_START 10
>
> static int diag308_parm_check(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, uint64_t addr,
> uintptr_t ra, bool write)
> @@ -105,6 +109,7 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1,
> uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra)
> s390_ipl_reset_request(cs, S390_RESET_REIPL);
> break;
> case DIAG308_SET:
> + case DIAG308_PV_SET:
> if (diag308_parm_check(env, r1, addr, ra, false)) {
> return;
> }
> @@ -117,7 +122,8 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1,
> uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra)
>
> cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
>
> - if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb)) {
> + if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb) &&
> + !(iplb_valid_pv(iplb) && !s390_ipl_pv_check_components(iplb))) {
I really think we should make this s390_ipl_pv_valid(), we're mixing
functions that return true on success with functions that return 0 on
success. Also, can't we simply move that check into iplb_valid_pv(iplb)
to make this here easier to read?
> env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVALID;
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -128,17 +134,31 @@ out:
> g_free(iplb);
> return;
> case DIAG308_STORE:
> + case DIAG308_PV_STORE:
> if (diag308_parm_check(env, r1, addr, ra, true)) {
> return;
> }
> - iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
> + if (subcode == DIAG308_PV_STORE) {
> + iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure();
> + } else {
> + iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
> + }
> if (iplb) {
> cpu_physical_memory_write(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
> env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_OK;
> } else {
> env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_NO_CONF;
> }
> - return;
> + break;
> + case DIAG308_PV_START:
> + iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure();
> + if (!iplb || !iplb_valid_pv(iplb)) {
Why do we need another iplb_valid_pv() check? I thought we would verify
this when setting and marking valid.
> + env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_NO_PV_CONF;
> + return;
> + }
> +
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
