On 4/1/22 19:13, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > Am 01.04.22 um 19:02 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch: >> If user space uses a memop to emulate an instruction and that >> memop fails, the execution of the instruction ends. >> Instruction execution can end in different ways, one of which is >> suppression, which requires that the instruction execute like a no-op. >> A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key >> protection can modified guest memory. Therefore do not indicate a >> suppressing instruction ending in this case. A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key protection can modified guest memory, as a result, the likely correct ending is termination. Therefore do not indicate a suppressing instruction ending in this case. ? It's phrased a bit vaguely, because we don't really know what user space wants when emulating an instruction, I guess it could try to revert the changes? And the TEID does not indicate termination, it only indicates that the guest cannot assume that the instruction was suppressed. > > Make it explicit in the changelog that this is "terminating" instead of > "suppressing". z/VM has the same logic and the architecture allows for > terminating in those cases (even for ESOP2). > > >> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> ---
