Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v1 1/4] s390x: sie: switch to home space mode before entering SIE

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

 



Quoting Janosch Frank (2023-03-28 16:13:04)
> On 3/27/23 10:21, Nico Boehr wrote:
> > This is to prepare for running guests without MSO/MSL, which is
> > currently not possible.
> > 
> > We already have code in sie64a to setup a guest primary ASCE before
> > entering SIE, so we can in theory switch to the page tables which
> > translate gpa to hpa.
> > 
> > But the host is running in primary space mode already, so changing the
> > primary ASCE before entering SIE will also affect the host's code and
> > data.
> > 
> > To make this switch useful, the host should run in a different address
> > space mode. Hence, set up and change to home address space mode before
> > installing the guest ASCE.
> > 
> > The home space ASCE is just copied over from the primary space ASCE, so
> > no functional change is intended, also for tests that want to use
> > MSO/MSL. If a test intends to use a different primary space ASCE, it can
> > now just set the guest.asce in the save_area.
> > 
> [...]
> > +     /* set up home address space to match primary space */
> > +     old_cr13 = stctg(13);
> > +     lctlg(13, stctg(1));
> > +
> > +     /* switch to home space so guest tables can be different from host */
> > +     psw_mask_set_bits(PSW_MASK_HOME);
> > +
> > +     /* also handle all interruptions in home space while in SIE */
> > +     lowcore.pgm_new_psw.mask |= PSW_MASK_DAT_HOME;
> 
> > +     lowcore.ext_new_psw.mask |= PSW_MASK_DAT_HOME;
> > +     lowcore.io_new_psw.mask |= PSW_MASK_DAT_HOME;
> We didn't enable DAT in these two cases as far as I can see so this is 
> superfluous or we should change the mmu code. Also it's missing the svc 
> and machine check.

Right. Is there a particular reason why we only run DAT on for PGM ints?

> The whole bit manipulation thing looks a bit crude. It might make more 
> sense to drop into real mode for a few instructions and have a dedicated 
> storage location for an extended PSW mask and an interrupt ASCE as part 
> of the interrupt call code instead.
> 
> Opinions?

Maybe I don't get it, but I personally don't quite see the advantage. It seems
to me this would make things much more complicated just to avoid a few simple
bitops.

It maybe also depends on how many new_psws we have to touch. If it's really just
the PGM, the current solution seems simple enough.

But if others also prefer Janosch's suggestion, I am happy to implement it.




[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