On 06/05/2022 17.39, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
Storage key controlled protection is currently not honored when
emulating instructions.
If available, enable key protection for the MEM_OP ioctl, thereby
enabling it for the s390_cpu_virt_mem_* functions, when using kvm.
As a result, the emulation of the following instructions honors storage
keys:
* CLP
The Synch I/O CLP command would need special handling in order
to support storage keys, but is currently not supported.
* CHSC
Performing commands asynchronously would require special
handling, but commands are currently always synchronous.
* STSI
* TSCH
Must (and does) not change channel if terminated due to
protection.
* MSCH
Suppressed on protection, works because fetching instruction.
* SSCH
Suppressed on protection, works because fetching instruction.
* STSCH
* STCRW
Suppressed on protection, this works because no partial store is
possible, because the operand cannot span multiple pages.
* PCISTB
* MPCIFC
* STPCIFC
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <s...@linux.ibm.com>
---
target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
index 53098bf541..7bd8db0e7b 100644
--- a/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
+++ b/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
@@ -151,12 +151,15 @@ const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[]
= {
static int cap_sync_regs;
static int cap_async_pf;
static int cap_mem_op;
+static int cap_mem_op_extension;
static int cap_s390_irq;
static int cap_ri;
static int cap_hpage_1m;
static int cap_vcpu_resets;
static int cap_protected;
+static bool mem_op_storage_key_support;
+
static int active_cmma;
static int kvm_s390_query_mem_limit(uint64_t *memory_limit)
@@ -354,6 +357,8 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
cap_sync_regs = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS);
cap_async_pf = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ASYNC_PF);
cap_mem_op = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
+ cap_mem_op_extension = kvm_check_extension(s,
KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
+ mem_op_storage_key_support = cap_mem_op_extension > 0;
Ah, so KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION is a "version number", not a boolean
flag? ... ok, now I've finally understood that ... ;-)
(would it be better to treat it as a flag field, so that certain extensions
could go away again in the future? In that case, it would be better to check
with "& 1" instead of "> 0" here)
Thomas
