On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:24:04 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On a protection exception, test that the Translation-Exception
> Identification (TEID) values are correct given the circumstances of the
> particular test.
> The meaning of the TEID values is dependent on the installed
> suppression-on-protection facility.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/skey.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/s390x/skey.c b/s390x/skey.c
> index 42bf598c..5e234cde 100644
> --- a/s390x/skey.c
> +++ b/s390x/skey.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> * Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> */
> #include <libcflat.h>
> +#include <asm/arch_def.h>
> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> #include <asm/interrupt.h>
> #include <vmalloc.h>
> @@ -158,6 +159,68 @@ static void test_test_protection(void)
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
>
> +enum access {
> + ACC_STORE = 1,
> + ACC_FETCH = 2,
> + ACC_UPDATE = 3,
> +};
> +
> +enum protection {
> + PROT_STORE = 1,
> + PROT_FETCH_STORE = 3,
> +};
> +
> +static void check_key_prot_exc(enum access access, enum protection prot)
> +{
> + union teid teid;
> + int access_code;
> +
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + report_prefix_push("TEID");
> + teid.val = lowcore.trans_exc_id;
> + switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
> + case SOP_NONE:
> + case SOP_BASIC:
> + break;
for basic you should check for sop_teid_predictable and sop_acc_list
> + case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
> + report(!teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat, "valid protection code");
actually, both values of esop1_acc_list_or_dat are wrong, since we're
expecting neither an access list nor a dat exception.
you need to check for esop1_teid_predictable instead (which you need to
add, see comment in that patchseries)
> + break;
> + case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
> + switch (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)) {
> + case PROT_KEY:
> + access_code = teid.acc_exc_f_s;
is the f/s feature guaranteed to be present when we have esop2?
can the f/s feature be present with esop1 or basic sop?
> +
> + switch (access_code) {
> + case 0:
> + report_pass("valid access code");
> + break;
> + case 1:
> + case 2:
> + report((access & access_code) && (prot & access_code),
> + "valid access code");
> + break;
> + case 3:
> + /*
> + * This is incorrect in that reserved values
> + * should be ignored, but kvm should not return
> + * a reserved value and having a test for that
> + * is more valuable.
> + */
> + report_fail("valid access code");
> + break;
> + }
> + /* fallthrough */
> + case PROT_KEY_LAP:
> + report_pass("valid protection code");
> + break;
> + default:
> + report_fail("valid protection code");
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Perform STORE CPU ADDRESS (STAP) instruction while temporarily executing
> * with access key 1.
> @@ -199,7 +262,7 @@ static void test_store_cpu_address(void)
> expect_pgm_int();
> *out = 0xbeef;
> store_cpu_address_key_1(out);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_STORE, PROT_STORE);
> report(*out == 0xbeef, "no store occurred");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> @@ -210,7 +273,7 @@ static void test_store_cpu_address(void)
> expect_pgm_int();
> *out = 0xbeef;
> store_cpu_address_key_1(out);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_STORE, PROT_STORE);
> report(*out == 0xbeef, "no store occurred");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> @@ -228,7 +291,7 @@ static void test_store_cpu_address(void)
> expect_pgm_int();
> *out = 0xbeef;
> store_cpu_address_key_1(out);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_STORE, PROT_STORE);
> report(*out == 0xbeef, "no store occurred");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> @@ -314,7 +377,7 @@ static void test_set_prefix(void)
> set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x28, 0);
> expect_pgm_int();
> set_prefix_key_1(prefix_ptr);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_FETCH, PROT_FETCH_STORE);
> report(get_prefix() == old_prefix, "did not set prefix");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> @@ -327,7 +390,7 @@ static void test_set_prefix(void)
> install_page(root, virt_to_pte_phys(root, pagebuf), 0);
> set_prefix_key_1((uint32_t *)0);
> install_page(root, 0, 0);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_FETCH, PROT_FETCH_STORE);
> report(get_prefix() == old_prefix, "did not set prefix");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> @@ -351,7 +414,7 @@ static void test_set_prefix(void)
> install_page(root, virt_to_pte_phys(root, pagebuf), 0);
> set_prefix_key_1((uint32_t *)&mem_all[2048]);
> install_page(root, 0, 0);
> - check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION);
> + check_key_prot_exc(ACC_FETCH, PROT_FETCH_STORE);
> report(get_prefix() == old_prefix, "did not set prefix");
> report_prefix_pop();
>
