On 02.05.2018 09:27, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 04/30/2018 05:38 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.04.2018 16:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 30.04.2018 16:29, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:04:35 +0300
>>>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [sent to David's current address]
>>>>
>>>>> [ Old warnings because this is non-x86 - dan ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello David Hildenbrand,
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch 166ecb3d3cfe: "KVM: s390: vsie: support transactional
>>>>> execution" from Nov 25, 2015, leads to the following static checker
>>>>> warning:
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c:581 pin_blocks()
>>>>> warn: was expecting a 64 bit value instead of '~8191'
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>>>> 548 static int pin_blocks(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>>>> 549 {
>>>>> 550 struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_o = vsie_page->scb_o;
>>>>> 551 struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb_s = &vsie_page->scb_s;
>>>>> 552 hpa_t hpa;
>>>>> 553 gpa_t gpa;
>>>>> ^^^^^
>>>>> gpa_t is a u64.
>>>>>
>>>>> 554 int rc = 0;
>>>>> 555
>>>>> 556 gpa = READ_ONCE(scb_o->scaol) & ~0xfUL;
>>>>> 557 if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_64BSCAO))
>>>>> 558 gpa |= (u64) READ_ONCE(scb_o->scaoh) << 32;
>>>>> 559 if (gpa) {
>>>>> 560 if (!(gpa & ~0x1fffUL))
>>>>> 561 rc = set_validity_icpt(scb_s, 0x0038U);
>>>>> 562 else if ((gpa & ~0x1fffUL) == kvm_s390_get_prefix(vcpu))
>>>>> 563 rc = set_validity_icpt(scb_s, 0x0011U);
>>>>> 564 else if ((gpa & PAGE_MASK) !=
>>>>> 565 ((gpa + sizeof(struct bsca_block) - 1) & PAGE_MASK))
>>>>> 566 rc = set_validity_icpt(scb_s, 0x003bU);
>>>>> 567 if (!rc) {
>>>>> 568 rc = pin_guest_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa, &hpa);
>>>>> 569 if (rc)
>>>>> 570 rc = set_validity_icpt(scb_s, 0x0034U);
>>>>> 571 }
>>>>> 572 if (rc)
>>>>> 573 goto unpin;
>>>>> 574 vsie_page->sca_gpa = gpa;
>>>>> 575 scb_s->scaoh = (u32)((u64)hpa >> 32);
>>>>> 576 scb_s->scaol = (u32)(u64)hpa;
>>>>> 577 }
>>>>> 578
>>>>> 579 gpa = READ_ONCE(scb_o->itdba) & ~0xffUL;
>>>>> ^^^^^
>>>>> Here it's UL.
>>>>>
>>>>> 580 if (gpa && (scb_s->ecb & ECB_TE)) {
>>>>> 581 if (!(gpa & ~0x1fffU)) {
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> But here it's u32. So the high 32 bits are not considered. Possibly it
>>>>> doesn't matter?
>>>
>>> /me trying to remember what the young David wanted to achieve here
>>>
>>> (Christian, can you double check in the SIE documentation, I assume the
>>> last 13 bits of the address must not be set because of alignment, right?
>>> Unfortunately I don't remember)
>>
>> Looking at it again, this check does not seem to do what I thought it
>> would do :) Alignment is handled already handled by the defined number
>> of bits (READ_ONCE(scb_o->itdba) & ~0xffUL).
>>
>> So this is rather a check that the used address must not lie in the
>> lower 8k of memory. (low core for real addressing)
>
> Yes, its a check for being > 8k.
>>
>> This could be triggered by a nested hypervisor but would not do any harm
>> to us: We simply pin the defined guest (nested hypervisor) address and
>> forward it.
>>
>> It sure should be fixed to catch all error cases.
>
> Shall I spin a patch or will you do one?
>
Will do! Thanks for confirming.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
