On 14.05.20 11:49, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 5/14/20 11:37 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 14.05.20 10:52, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> On 5/14/20 9:53 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 14/05/2020 00.15, Collin Walling wrote:
>>>>> DIAGNOSE 0x318 (diag318) is a privileged s390x instruction that must
>>>>> be intercepted by SIE and handled via KVM. Let's introduce some
>>>>> functions to communicate between userspace and KVM via ioctls. These
>>>>> will be used to get/set the diag318 related information, as well as
>>>>> check the system if KVM supports handling this instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> This information can help with diagnosing the environment the VM is
>>>>> running in (Linux, z/VM, etc) if the OS calls this instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> By default, this feature is disabled and can only be enabled if a
>>>>> user space program (such as QEMU) explicitly requests it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Control Program Name Code (CPNC) is stored in the SIE block
>>>>> and a copy is retained in each VCPU. The Control Program Version
>>>>> Code (CPVC) is not designed to be stored in the SIE block, so we
>>>>> retain a copy in each VCPU next to the CPNC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <walling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vm.rst | 29 +++++++++
>>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 6 +-
>>>>> arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 5 ++
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/diag.c | 20 ++++++
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 1 +
>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 2 +
>>>>> 7 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/diag.c b/arch/s390/kvm/diag.c
>>>>> index 563429dece03..3caed4b880c8 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/diag.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/diag.c
>>>>> @@ -253,6 +253,24 @@ static int __diag_virtio_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int __diag_set_diag318_info(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned int reg = (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa & 0xf0) >> 4;
>>>>> + u64 info = vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[reg];
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!vcpu->kvm->arch.use_diag318)
>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + vcpu->stat.diagnose_318++;
>>>>> + kvm_s390_set_diag318_info(vcpu->kvm, info);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 3, "diag 0x318 cpnc: 0x%x cpvc: 0x%llx",
>>>>> + vcpu->kvm->arch.diag318_info.cpnc,
>>>>> + (u64)vcpu->kvm->arch.diag318_info.cpvc);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> int kvm_s390_handle_diag(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int code = kvm_s390_get_base_disp_rs(vcpu, NULL) & 0xffff;
>>>>> @@ -272,6 +290,8 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_diag(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> return __diag_page_ref_service(vcpu);
>>>>> case 0x308:
>>>>> return __diag_ipl_functions(vcpu);
>>>>> + case 0x318:
>>>>> + return __diag_set_diag318_info(vcpu);
>>>>> case 0x500:
>>>>> return __diag_virtio_hypercall(vcpu);
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether it would make more sense to simply drop to userspace
>>>> and handle the diag 318 call there? That way the userspace would always
>>>> be up-to-date, and as we've seen in the past (e.g. with the various SIGP
>>>> handling), it's better if the userspace is in control... e.g. userspace
>>>> could also decide to only use KVM_S390_VM_MISC_ENABLE_DIAG318 if the
>>>> guest just executed the diag 318 instruction.
>>>>
>>>> And you need the kvm_s390_vm_get/set_misc functions anyway, so these
>>>> could also be simply used by the diag 318 handler in userspace?
>>>>
>>>>> default:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> index d05bb040fd42..c3eee468815f 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ struct kvm_stats_debugfs_item debugfs_entries[] = {
>>>>> { "diag_9c_ignored", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_9c_ignored) },
>>>>> { "instruction_diag_258", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_258) },
>>>>> { "instruction_diag_308", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_308) },
>>>>> + { "instruction_diag_318", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_318) },
>>>>> { "instruction_diag_500", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_500) },
>>>>> { "instruction_diag_other", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_other) },
>>>>> { NULL }
>>>>> @@ -1243,6 +1244,76 @@ static int kvm_s390_get_tod(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void kvm_s390_set_diag318_info(struct kvm *kvm, u64 info)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>>>>> + int i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + kvm->arch.diag318_info.val = info;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "SET: CPNC: 0x%x CPVC: 0x%llx",
>>>>> + kvm->arch.diag318_info.cpnc, kvm->arch.diag318_info.cpvc);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (sclp.has_diag318) {
>>>>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpnc = kvm->arch.diag318_info.cpnc;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int kvm_s390_vm_set_misc(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> + u64 diag318_info;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + switch (attr->attr) {
>>>>> + case KVM_S390_VM_MISC_ENABLE_DIAG318:
>>>>> + kvm->arch.use_diag318 = 1;
>>>>> + ret = 0;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to set kvm->arch.use_diag318 = 1 during the first
>>>> execution of KVM_S390_VM_MISC_DIAG318 instead, so that we could get
>>>> along without the KVM_S390_VM_MISC_ENABLE_DIAG318 ?
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert in feature negotiation, but why isn't this a cpu
>>> feature like sief2 instead of a attribute?
>>>
>>> @David?
>>
>> In the end you want to have it somehow in the CPU model I guess. You
>> cannot glue it to QEMU machines, because availability depends on HW+KVM
>> support.
>>
>> How does the guest detect that it can use diag318? I assume/hope via a a
>> STFLE feature.
>>
> SCLP
Okay, so just another feature flag, which implies it belongs into the
CPU model. How we communicate support from kvm to QEMU can be done via
features, bot also via attributes. Important part is that we can
sense/enable/disable.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
