Excerpts from Fabiano Rosas's message of January 8, 2022 7:00 am:
> If MMIO emulation fails we don't want to crash the whole guest by
> returning to userspace.
>
> The original commit bbf45ba57eae ("KVM: ppc: PowerPC 440 KVM
> implementation") added a todo:
>
> /* XXX Deliver Program interrupt to guest. */
>
> and later the commit d69614a295ae ("KVM: PPC: Separate loadstore
> emulation from priv emulation") added the Program interrupt injection
> but in another file, so I'm assuming it was missed that this block
> needed to be altered.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> index 6daeea4a7de1..56b0faab7a5f 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
> @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ int kvmppc_emulate_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> kvmppc_get_last_inst(vcpu, INST_GENERIC, &last_inst);
> kvmppc_core_queue_program(vcpu, 0);
> pr_info("%s: emulation failed (%08x)\n", __func__, last_inst);
> - r = RESUME_HOST;
> + r = RESUME_GUEST;
So at this point can the pr_info just go away?
I wonder if this shouldn't be a DSI rather than a program check.
DSI with DSISR[37] looks a bit more expected. Not that Linux
probably does much with it but at least it would give a SIGBUS
rather than SIGILL.
Thanks,
Nick
