Am 25.04.22 um 19:29 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
On 4/25/22 18:30, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 25.04.22 um 12:01 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
If a memop fails due to key checked protection, after already having
written to the guest, don't indicate suppression to the guest, as that
would imply that memory wasn't modified.
This could be considered a fix to the code introducing storage key
support, however this is a bug in KVM only if we emulate an
instructions writing to an operand spanning multiple pages, which I
don't believe we do.
Thanks applied. I think it makes sense for 5.18 nevertheless.
Janosch had some concerns because the protection code being 000 implies
that the effective address in the TEID is unpredictable.
Let's see if he chimes in.
z/VM does exactly the same on key protection crossing a page boundary. The
architecture was written in a way to allow all zeros exactly for this case.
(hypervisor emulation of key protection crossing pages).
This is even true for ESOP-2. See Figure 3-5 or figure 3-8 (the first line)
which allows to NOT have a valid address in the TEID for key controlled
protection.
The only question is, do we need to change the suppression parameter in
access_guest_with_key
(mode != GACC_STORE) || (idx == 0)
to also check for prot != PROT_TYPE_KEYC
? I think we do not need this as we have checked other reasons before.
