Re: [RFC 21/37] KVM: S390: protvirt: Instruction emulation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:40:43 -0400
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We have two new SIE exit codes 104 for a secure instruction
> interception, on which the SIE needs hypervisor action to complete the
> instruction.
> 
> And 108 which is merely a notification and provides data for tracking
> and management, like for the lowcore we set notification bits for the
> lowcore pages.

What about the following:

"With protected virtualization, we have two new SIE exit codes:

- 104 indicates a secure instruction interception; the hypervisor needs
  to complete emulation of the instruction.
- 108 is merely a notification providing data for tracking and
  management in the hypervisor; for example, we set notification bits
  for the lowcore pages."

?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  2 ++
>  arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c        | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 2a8a1e21e1c3..a42dfe98128b 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>  #define ICPT_KSS	0x5c
>  #define ICPT_PV_MCHKR	0x60
>  #define ICPT_PV_INT_EN	0x64
> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR	0x68
> +#define ICPT_PV_NOT	0x6c

Maybe ICPT_PV_NOTIF?

>  	__u8	icptcode;		/* 0x0050 */
>  	__u8	icptstatus;		/* 0x0051 */
>  	__u16	ihcpu;			/* 0x0052 */
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> index b013a9c88d43..a1df8a43c88b 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> @@ -451,6 +451,23 @@ static int handle_operexc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_OPERATION);
>  }
>  
> +static int handle_pv_spx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	u32 pref = *(u32 *)vcpu->arch.sie_block->sidad;
> +
> +	kvm_s390_set_prefix(vcpu, pref);
> +	trace_kvm_s390_handle_prefix(vcpu, 1, pref);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int handle_pv_not(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa == 0xb210)
> +		return handle_pv_spx(vcpu);
> +
> +	return handle_instruction(vcpu);

Hm... if I understood it correctly, we are getting this one because the
SIE informs us about things that it handled itself (but which we
should be aware of). What can handle_instruction() do in this case?

> +}
> +
>  int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	int rc, per_rc = 0;
> @@ -505,6 +522,12 @@ int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		 */
>  		rc = 0;
>  	break;
> +	case ICPT_PV_INSTR:
> +		rc = handle_instruction(vcpu);
> +		break;
> +	case ICPT_PV_NOT:
> +		rc = handle_pv_not(vcpu);
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	}





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux