On 04/09/2019 11.05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.09.19 10:51, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> If unknown bits are set in kvm_valid_regs or kvm_dirty_regs, this
>> clearly indicates that something went wrong in the KVM userspace
>> application. The x86 variant of KVM already contains a check for
>> bad bits, so let's do the same on s390x now, too.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 6 ++++++
>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> index 47104e5b47fd..436ec7636927 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> @@ -231,6 +231,12 @@ struct kvm_guest_debug_arch {
>> #define KVM_SYNC_GSCB (1UL << 9)
>> #define KVM_SYNC_BPBC (1UL << 10)
>> #define KVM_SYNC_ETOKEN (1UL << 11)
>> +
>> +#define KVM_SYNC_S390_VALID_FIELDS \
>> + (KVM_SYNC_PREFIX | KVM_SYNC_GPRS | KVM_SYNC_ACRS | KVM_SYNC_CRS | \
>> + KVM_SYNC_ARCH0 | KVM_SYNC_PFAULT | KVM_SYNC_VRS | KVM_SYNC_RICCB | \
>> + KVM_SYNC_FPRS | KVM_SYNC_GSCB | KVM_SYNC_BPBC | KVM_SYNC_ETOKEN)
>> +
>
> We didn't care about the S390 for the actual flags, why care now?
x86 does the same, and we don't want to be worse than x86, do we? ;-)
Honestly, this was just one of the differences that I noticed while
porting the sync_regs_test from x86 to s390x.
Thomas
