On 24/10/2019 13.40, Janosch Frank wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> index 37cb62bc261b..a89738e4f761 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static int handle_stop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (!stop_pending)
> return 0;
>
> - if (flags & KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS) {
> + if (flags & KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS &&
> + !kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) {
> rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_store_status(vcpu,
> KVM_S390_STORE_STATUS_NOADDR);
> if (rc)
Can this still happen at all that we get here with
KVM_S390_STOP_FLAG_STORE_STATUS in the protected case? I'd rather expect
that SIGP is completely handled by the UV already, so userspace should
have no need to inject a SIGP_STOP anymore? Or did I get that wrong?
Anyway, I guess it can not hurt to add this check anyway, so:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
