On 14.02.20 23:26, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> From: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Only two program exceptions can be injected for a protected guest:
> specification and operand.
>
> For both, a code needs to be specified in the interrupt injection
> control of the state description, as the guest prefix page is not
> accessible to KVM for such guests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx: patch merging, splitting, fixing]
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> index 3e160d9a214f..7a10096fa204 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> @@ -836,6 +836,21 @@ static int __must_check __deliver_external_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return rc ? -EFAULT : 0;
> }
>
> +static int __deliver_prog_pv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 code)
> +{
> + switch (code) {
> + case PGM_SPECIFICATION:
> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->iictl = IICTL_CODE_SPECIFICATION;
> + break;
> + case PGM_OPERAND:
> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->iictl = IICTL_CODE_OPERAND;
> + break;
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int __must_check __deliver_prog(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct kvm_s390_local_interrupt *li = &vcpu->arch.local_int;
> @@ -856,6 +871,9 @@ static int __must_check __deliver_prog(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> trace_kvm_s390_deliver_interrupt(vcpu->vcpu_id, KVM_S390_PROGRAM_INT,
> pgm_info.code, 0);
>
> + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm))
Can we actually ever have PER set, and what would happen if so?
Shouldn't we also return -EINVAL?
> + return __deliver_prog_pv(vcpu, pgm_info.code & ~PGM_PER);
> +
> switch (pgm_info.code & ~PGM_PER) {
> case PGM_AFX_TRANSLATION:
> case PGM_ASX_TRANSLATION:
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
