On 14.02.2018 09:34, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> If the guest runs with bp isolation when doing a SIE instruction,
> we must also run the nested guest with bp isolation when emulating
> that SIE instruction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> index ec772700ff96..b8e7660d7207 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> @@ -821,6 +821,7 @@ static int do_vsie_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
> {
> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_s = &vsie_page->scb_s;
> struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_o = vsie_page->scb_o;
> + int guest_bp_isolation;
> int rc;
>
> handle_last_fault(vcpu, vsie_page);
> @@ -831,6 +832,15 @@ static int do_vsie_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
> s390_handle_mcck();
>
> srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
> +
> + /* save current guest state of bp isolation override */
> + guest_bp_isolation = test_thread_flag(TIF_ISOLATE_BP_GUEST);
If I am not wrong, this is not "guest state". The guest state is
vcpu->arch.sie_block->fpf . This is host state of a thread.
> +
> + /* if guest runs with bp isolation force it on nested guest */
> + if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 82) &&
> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->fpf & FPF_BPBC)
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_ISOLATE_BP_GUEST);
> +
> local_irq_disable();
> guest_enter_irqoff();
> local_irq_enable();
> @@ -840,6 +850,11 @@ static int do_vsie_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
> local_irq_disable();
> guest_exit_irqoff();
> local_irq_enable();
> +
> + /* restore guest state for bp isolation override */
> + if (!guest_bp_isolation)
> + clear_thread_flag(TIF_ISOLATE_BP_GUEST);
> +
> vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
>
> if (rc == -EINTR) {
>
You are trying to optimize the following case here:
1. TIF_ISOLATE_BP_GUEST is not set
2. The guest has facility 82 and enabled FPF_BPBC
As the vSIE guest can change its FPF_BPBC, there is basically no
guarantee to that. So, when entering/leaving the nested guest, you act
like the hardware would be doing FPF_BPBC - as it could be disabled for
the nested guest / the nested guest can change the state itself.
However I wonder what the semantics of FPF_BPBC should be. Shouldn't it
be the case that if the guest has enabled FPF_BPBC, that it is forced on
for the nested guest? (HW is missing a control to force it on).
Unfortunately, I don't have access to documentation, can you clarify?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
