Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/3] s390x: skrf: Add exception new skey test and add test to unittests.cfg

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2456 bytes --]

On 7/21/20 9:28 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17/07/2020 16.58, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> If a exception new psw mask contains a key a specification exception
>> instead of a special operation exception is presented.
> 
> I have troubles parsing that sentence... could you write that differently?
> (and: "s/a exception/an exception/")

How about:

When an exception psw new with a storage key in its mask is loaded from
lowcore a specification exception is raised instead of the special
operation exception that is normally presented when skrf is active.

> 
>> Let's test
>> that.
>>
>> Also let's add the test to unittests.cfg so it is run more often.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  s390x/skrf.c        | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  4 +++
>>  2 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
>> index 9cae589..9733412 100644
>> --- a/s390x/skrf.c
>> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>>  #include <asm/page.h>
>>  #include <asm/facility.h>
>>  #include <asm/mem.h>
>> +#include <asm/sigp.h>
>> +#include <smp.h>
>>  
>>  static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
>>  
>> @@ -106,6 +108,84 @@ static void test_tprot(void)
>>  	report_prefix_pop();
>>  }
>>  
>> +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
> 
> Can we keep the #includes at the top of the file, please?

Yes

> 
>> +static int testflag = 0;
>> +
>> +static void wait_for_flag(void)
>> +{
>> +	while (!testflag)
>> +		mb();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void set_flag(int val)
>> +{
>> +	mb();
>> +	testflag = val;
>> +	mb();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ecall_cleanup(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct lowcore *lc = (void *)0x0;
>> +
>> +	lc->ext_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL;
> 
> Don't we have defines for the PSW values yet?

Pierre dropped that patch because of your old binutils version...

> 
>> +	lc->sw_int_crs[0] = 0x0000000000040000;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * PGM old contains the ext new PSW, we need to clean it up,
>> +	 * so we don't get a special oepration exception on the lpswe
> 
> operation

fixed

> 
>> +	 * of pgm old.
>> +	 */
>> +	lc->pgm_old_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL;
>> +	lc->pgm_old_psw.addr = (unsigned long)wait_for_flag;
>> +
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
>> +	set_flag(1);
>> +}
> 
>  Thomas
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]