On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:10:01 +0100 Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/3/21 10:29, Janosch Frank wrote: > > On 11/26/21 14:28, Janosch Frank wrote: > >> On 11/23/21 12:22, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > >>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 10:39:55 +0000 > >>> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > [...] > >>> are they supposed to have different addresses? > >>> the C files start at 0x4000, while the asm ones at 0 > >> > >> That's a mistake I'll need to fix. > > > > On second thought this is correct since it's the starting address of the > > component and not the PSW entry. The psw entry is the next argument. > > The C snippets currently have data in the first 4 pages so we can > > encrypt from offset 0. > > > > The question that remains is: do we need the data at 0x0 - 0x4000? > > The reset and restart PSWs are not really necessary since we don't start > > the snippets as a lpar or in simulation where we use these PSWs. > > The stackptr is just that, a ptr AFAIK so there shouldn't be data on > > 0x3000 (but I'll look that up anyway). > > Colleagues have used the C PV snippets over the last few weeks and > haven't reported any issues. It's time that we bring this into master > since a lot of upcoming tests are currently based on this series. > > @Claudio: Any further comments? no, let's bring this into master
