On 11/14/19 4:38 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:40:43 -0400
> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> We have two new SIE exit codes 104 for a secure instruction
>> interception, on which the SIE needs hypervisor action to complete the
>> instruction.
>>
>> And 108 which is merely a notification and provides data for tracking
>> and management, like for the lowcore we set notification bits for the
>> lowcore pages.
>
> What about the following:
>
> "With protected virtualization, we have two new SIE exit codes:
>
> - 104 indicates a secure instruction interception; the hypervisor needs
> to complete emulation of the instruction.
> - 108 is merely a notification providing data for tracking and
> management in the hypervisor; for example, we set notification bits
> for the lowcore pages."
>
> ?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
>> arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 2a8a1e21e1c3..a42dfe98128b 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>> #define ICPT_KSS 0x5c
>> #define ICPT_PV_MCHKR 0x60
>> #define ICPT_PV_INT_EN 0x64
>> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR 0x68
>> +#define ICPT_PV_NOT 0x6c
>
> Maybe ICPT_PV_NOTIF?
NOTF?
>
>> __u8 icptcode; /* 0x0050 */
>> __u8 icptstatus; /* 0x0051 */
>> __u16 ihcpu; /* 0x0052 */
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>> index b013a9c88d43..a1df8a43c88b 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>> @@ -451,6 +451,23 @@ static int handle_operexc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_OPERATION);
>> }
>>
>> +static int handle_pv_spx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + u32 pref = *(u32 *)vcpu->arch.sie_block->sidad;
>> +
>> + kvm_s390_set_prefix(vcpu, pref);
>> + trace_kvm_s390_handle_prefix(vcpu, 1, pref);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int handle_pv_not(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa == 0xb210)
>> + return handle_pv_spx(vcpu);
>> +
>> + return handle_instruction(vcpu);
>
> Hm... if I understood it correctly, we are getting this one because the
> SIE informs us about things that it handled itself (but which we
> should be aware of). What can handle_instruction() do in this case?
There used to be an instruction which I could just pipe through normal
instruction handling. But I can't really remember what it was, too many
firmware changes in that area since then.
I'll mark it as a TODO for thinking about it with some coffee.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> int rc, per_rc = 0;
>> @@ -505,6 +522,12 @@ int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> */
>> rc = 0;
>> break;
>> + case ICPT_PV_INSTR:
>> + rc = handle_instruction(vcpu);
>> + break;
>> + case ICPT_PV_NOT:
>> + rc = handle_pv_not(vcpu);
>> + break;
>> default:
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> }
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
