From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F40CC43381 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C62214D8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732648AbfB1OOY (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:14:24 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35612 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732329AbfB1OOX (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:14:23 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1SEDUJW119003 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:14:22 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qxfhkwjyk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:14:22 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:20 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:16 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1SEEEVP54395094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:14 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B484FA4053; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FE6A4040; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.152.224.140] (unknown [9.152.224.140]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:14:14 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: pmorel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: ap: kvm: add PQAP interception for AQIC To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Tony Krowiak , alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com References: <1550849400-27152-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1550849400-27152-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <9f1d9241-39b9-adbc-d0e9-cb702e609cbc@linux.ibm.com> <4dc59125-7f96-cba8-651b-382ed8f8bff8@linux.ibm.com> <8526f468-9a4d-68d2-3868-0dad5ce16f46@linux.ibm.com> <6058a017-6404-af3c-62ef-2452214ac97c@de.ibm.com> <2391adc2-6611-034c-61c5-feb46e2a751b@de.ibm.com> <20190228122251.75b31f62.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190228145254.2909425e.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190228145254.2909425e.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022814-0012-0000-0000-000002FB530E X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022814-0013-0000-0000-00002132FF74 Message-Id: <261a1e22-3703-21a4-e33d-e737651e7d89@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-28_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=871 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902280099 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28/02/2019 14:52, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:16:09 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 28/02/2019 12:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> So, to summarize, the function should do: >>> - Is userspace supposed to emulate everything (!ECA_APIE)? Return >>> -EOPNOTSUPP to hand control to it. >>> - We are now interpreting the instruction in KVM. Do common checks >>> (PSTATE etc.) and inject exceptions, if needed. >>> - Now look at the fc; if there's a handler for it, call that; if not >>> (case does not attempt to call a specific handler, or no handler >>> registered), inject a specification exception. (Do we want pre-checks >>> like for facility 65 here, or in the handler?) >>> >>> That response code 0x01 thingy probably needs to go into the specific >>> handler function, if anywhere (don't know the semantics, sorry). >> >> What do you mean with specific handler function? >> >> If you mean a switch around the FC with static function's call, I agree, >> if you mean a jump into a hook I do not agree. > > Ah, ok; so each case (that we want to handle) should call into a > subhandler that does > { > (... check things like facilities ...) > if (!specific_hook) > inject_specif_excp_and_return(); > ret = specific_hook(); > if (ret) > set_resp_code_0x01(); // or in specific_hook()? > } > > ? Yes something in this direction. > >>> >>> Question: Will the handlers for the individual fcs need to generate >>> different exceptions on their own? I.e., do they need to do injections >>> themselves, or should the calling function possibly inject an exception >>> on error? >> >> There are some specificities. > > Ok, should probably done in the subhandlers? > > (I hope I don't muddy the waters too much; but basically, I'm poking > around with a stick in the dark :) > No problem, it is OK. My first idea was to make only changes associated with PQAP/AQIC. We already should have done it for all PQAP functions so it is decided that we will do it now as Christian proposed. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany