On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:00:41 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Sounds good.
>
> >
> >> __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.
ok :)
>
> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> 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:
pgpuM0IfP8dHl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
