On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:36:06 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add test cases similar to those testing the effect of storage keys on
> instructions emulated by KVM, but test instructions emulated by user
> space/qemu instead.
> Test that DIAG 308 is not subject to key protection.
> Additionally, check the transaction exception identification on
> protection exceptions.
thanks, queued
>
> This series is based on v3 of s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage .
>
> v4 -> v5
> * rebase onto v3 of TEID series
> * ignore ancient machines without at least ESOP-1
>
> v3 -> v4
> * rebase on newest TEID decoding series
> * pick up r-b's (Thanks Claudio)
> * add check for protection code validity in case of basic SOP
>
> v2 -> v3
> * move sclp patch and part of TEID test to series
> s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage
> * make use of reworked TEID union in skey TEID test
> * get rid of pointer to array for diag 308 test
> * use lowcore symbol and mem_all
> * don't reset intparm when expecting exception in msch test
>
> v1 -> v2
> * don't mixup sclp fix with new bits for the TEID patch
> * address feedback
> * cosmetic changes, i.e. shortening identifiers
> * remove unconditional report_info
> * add DIAG 308 test
>
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch (3):
> s390x: Test TEID values in storage key test
> s390x: Test effect of storage keys on some more instructions
> s390x: Test effect of storage keys on diag 308
>
> s390x/skey.c | 379 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 374 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Range-diff against v4:
> 1: fbfd7e3b ! 1: a30f2b45 s390x: Test TEID values in storage key test
> @@ s390x/skey.c: static void test_test_protection(void)
> +{
> + union teid teid;
> + int access_code;
> -+ bool dat;
> +
> + 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:
> -+ break;
> + case SOP_BASIC:
> -+ dat = extract_psw_mask() & PSW_MASK_DAT;
> -+ report(!teid.sop_teid_predictable || !dat || !teid.sop_acc_list,
> -+ "valid protection code");
> ++ /* let's ignore ancient/irrelevant machines */
> + break;
> + case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
> + report(!teid.sop_teid_predictable, "valid protection code");
> ++ /* no access code in case of key protection */
> + break;
> + case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
> + switch (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)) {
> + case PROT_KEY:
> -+ access_code = teid.acc_exc_f_s;
> ++ /* ESOP-2: no need to check facility */
> ++ access_code = teid.acc_exc_fetch_store;
> +
> + switch (access_code) {
> + case 0:
> @@ s390x/skey.c: static void test_test_protection(void)
> + break;
> + }
> + /* fallthrough */
> -+ case PROT_KEY_LAP:
> ++ case PROT_KEY_OR_LAP:
> + report_pass("valid protection code");
> + break;
> + default:
> 2: 868bb863 = 2: b194f716 s390x: Test effect of storage keys on some more instructions
> 3: d49934c0 = 3: 460d77ec s390x: Test effect of storage keys on diag 308
>
> base-commit: 610c15284a537484682adfb4b6d6313991ab954f
> prerequisite-patch-id: bebbc71ca3cc8d085e36a049466dba5a420c9c75
> prerequisite-patch-id: d38a4fc7bc1fa6e352502f294cb9413f0b738b99
> prerequisite-patch-id: 15d25aaab40e81ad60a13218eaba370585c4a87e
