Re: [PATCH v11 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 7/4/22 13:02, Pierre Morel wrote:


On 7/4/22 11:08, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 7/1/22 18:25, Pierre Morel wrote:

...

+    if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
+        vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
      if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
          vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
      if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
@@ -3403,6 +3437,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
      rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
      if (rc)
          goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
+
+    kvm_s390_update_topology_change_report(vcpu->kvm, 1);
      return 0;
  out_ucontrol_uninit:
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
index 12c464c7cddf..046afee1be94 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
@@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
      if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
          return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
-    if (fc > 3) {
-        kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
-        return 0;
-    }
+    /* Bailout forbidden function codes */
+    if (fc > 3 && (fc != 15 || kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)))
+        goto out_no_data;
+
+    /* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
+    if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
+        goto out_no_data;
      if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
          || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
@@ -910,6 +913,11 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
              goto out_no_data;
          handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
          break;
+    case 15: /* fc 15 is fully handled in userspace */
+        if (vcpu->kvm->arch.user_stsi)
+            insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
+        trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
+        return -EREMOTE;

This doesn't look right to me, you still return -EREMOTE if user_stsi is false. The way I read the PoP here is that it is ok to set condition code 3 for the else case

Yes it is what I wanted to do.
I do not understand what I did here is stupid.

I thought again on this as I explain in another thread, I do not think we need to check on user_stsi here.





--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux