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
