On 28/08/2019 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
> instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
> key.
>
> Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
> (pfmf) or not at all (skey).
>
> Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
> affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/Makefile | 1 +
> s390x/pfmf.c | 10 ++++
> s390x/skey.c | 5 ++
> s390x/skrf.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c
[...]
> +static void test_mvcos(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t r3 = 64;
> + uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
> + uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
> + /* K bit set, as well as keys */
> + register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
> +
> + report_prefix_push("mvcos");
> + expect_pgm_int();
> + asm volatile("mvcos %[dst],%[src],%[len]"
> + : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
> + : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
Just a nit: I think you could write "*dst" instead of "*(dst)" and
"*src" instead of "*(src)".
> + : "cc", "memory");
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_spka(void)
> +{
> + report_prefix_push("spka");
> + expect_pgm_int();
> + asm volatile("spka 0xf0(0)\n");
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_tprot(void)
> +{
> + report_prefix_push("tprot");
> + expect_pgm_int();
> + asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
> + : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + report_prefix_push("skrf");
> + if (!test_facility(169)) {
> + report_skip("storage key removal facility not available\n");
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + test_facilities();
> + test_skey();
> + test_pfmf();
> + test_psw_key();
> + test_mvcos();
> + test_spka();
> + test_tprot();
> +
> +done:
> + report_prefix_pop();
> + return report_summary();
> +}
I can't say much about the technical details here (since I don't have
the doc for that "removal facility"), but apart from that, the patch
looks fine to me now.
Acked-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
(and I'll wait one or two more days for additional reviews before
queuing the patches)
