[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

The translation-exception identification (TEID) contains information to
identify the cause of certain program exceptions, including translation
exceptions occurring during dynamic address translation, as well as
protection exceptions.
The meaning of fields in the TEID is complex, depending on the exception
occurring and various potentially installed facilities.

Add function to query which suppression-on-protection facility is
installed.
Rework the type describing the TEID, in order to ease decoding.
Change the existing code interpreting the TEID and extend it to take the
installed suppression-on-protection facility into account.

Also fix the sclp bit order.
This series is based on  v2 of series s390x: Avoid gcc 12 warnings .
The sclp fix is taken from v2 More skey instr. emulation test,
and could be picked independently from the rest of the series.

Janis Schoetterl-Glausch (3):
  s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers
  s390x: lib: SOP facility query function
  s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

 lib/s390x/asm/facility.h  | 21 +++++++++++
 lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 lib/s390x/fault.h         | 30 ++++------------
 lib/s390x/sclp.h          | 18 ++++++----
 lib/s390x/fault.c         | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 lib/s390x/interrupt.c     |  2 +-
 lib/s390x/sclp.c          |  2 ++
 s390x/edat.c              | 20 +++++++----
 8 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)


base-commit: 8719e8326101c1be8256617caf5835b57e819339
prerequisite-patch-id: aa682f50e4eba0e9b6cacd245d568f5bcca05e0f
prerequisite-patch-id: 55b90f625ada542f074cecb82cf63e2980205ce1
-- 
2.33.1

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
can be defined as they are in the documentation.

Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/sclp.h | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
index e48a5a3d..3488f4d2 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
@@ -134,13 +134,13 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
 };
 
 /* bit number within a certain byte */
-#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		7
-#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		0
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	7
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		6
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		3
-#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		6
-#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		5
+#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
+#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		4
+#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		1
+#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		2
 
 typedef struct ReadInfo {
 	SCCBHeader h;
-- 
2.33.1

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/3] s390x: lib: SOP facility query function

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

Add function returning which suppression-on-protection facility is
installed.

Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/asm/facility.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/s390x/sclp.h         |  4 ++++
 lib/s390x/sclp.c         |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h b/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
index 49380203..a66fe56a 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <asm/facility.h>
 #include <asm/arch_def.h>
 #include <bitops.h>
+#include <sclp.h>
 
 #define NB_STFL_DOUBLEWORDS 32
 extern uint64_t stfl_doublewords[];
@@ -42,4 +43,24 @@ static inline void setup_facilities(void)
 		stfle(stfl_doublewords, NB_STFL_DOUBLEWORDS);
 }
 
+enum supp_on_prot_facility {
+	SOP_NONE,
+	SOP_BASIC,
+	SOP_ENHANCED_1,
+	SOP_ENHANCED_2,
+};
+
+static inline enum supp_on_prot_facility get_supp_on_prot_facility(void)
+{
+	if (sclp_facilities.has_esop) {
+		if (test_facility(131)) /* side-effect-access facility */
+			return SOP_ENHANCED_2;
+		else
+			return SOP_ENHANCED_1;
+	}
+	if (sclp_facilities.has_sop)
+		return SOP_BASIC;
+	return SOP_NONE;
+}
+
 #endif
diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
index 3488f4d2..853529bf 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
@@ -123,7 +123,9 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
 	uint64_t has_cei : 1;
 
 	uint64_t has_diag318 : 1;
+	uint64_t has_sop : 1;
 	uint64_t has_gsls : 1;
+	uint64_t has_esop : 1;
 	uint64_t has_cmma : 1;
 	uint64_t has_64bscao : 1;
 	uint64_t has_esca : 1;
@@ -134,7 +136,9 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
 };
 
 /* bit number within a certain byte */
+#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
 #define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
+#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
 #define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
 #define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
 #define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
index b8204c5f..e6017f64 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
@@ -152,7 +152,9 @@ void sclp_facilities_setup(void)
 	cpu = sclp_get_cpu_entries();
 	if (read_info->offset_cpu > 134)
 		sclp_facilities.has_diag318 = read_info->byte_134_diag318;
+	sclp_facilities.has_sop = sclp_feat_check(80, SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP);
 	sclp_facilities.has_gsls = sclp_feat_check(85, SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS);
+	sclp_facilities.has_esop = sclp_feat_check(85, SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP);
 	sclp_facilities.has_kss = sclp_feat_check(98, SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS);
 	sclp_facilities.has_cmma = sclp_feat_check(116, SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA);
 	sclp_facilities.has_64bscao = sclp_feat_check(116, SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO);
-- 
2.33.1

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

The translation-exception identification (TEID) contains information to
identify the cause of certain program exceptions, including translation
exceptions occurring during dynamic address translation, as well as
protection exceptions.
The meaning of fields in the TEID is complex, depending on the exception
occurring and various potentially installed facilities.

Rework the type describing the TEID, in order to ease decoding.
Change the existing code interpreting the TEID and extend it to take the
installed suppression-on-protection facility into account.

Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 lib/s390x/fault.h         | 30 ++++------------
 lib/s390x/fault.c         | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 lib/s390x/interrupt.c     |  2 +-
 s390x/edat.c              | 20 +++++++----
 5 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
index d9ab0bd7..8d5bfbf9 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
@@ -20,23 +20,61 @@
 
 union teid {
 	unsigned long val;
-	struct {
-		unsigned long addr:52;
-		unsigned long fetch:1;
-		unsigned long store:1;
-		unsigned long reserved:6;
-		unsigned long acc_list_prot:1;
-		/*
-		 * depending on the exception and the installed facilities,
-		 * the m field can indicate several different things,
-		 * including whether the exception was triggered by a MVPG
-		 * instruction, or whether the addr field is meaningful
-		 */
-		unsigned long m:1;
-		unsigned long asce_id:2;
+	union {
+		/* common fields DAT exc & protection exc */
+		struct {
+			uint64_t addr			: 52 -  0;
+			uint64_t acc_exc_f_s		: 54 - 52;
+			uint64_t side_effect_acc	: 55 - 54;
+			uint64_t /* reserved */		: 55 - 54;
+			uint64_t asce_id		: 64 - 62;
+		};
+		/* DAT exc */
+		struct {
+			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
+			uint64_t dat_move_page		: 62 - 61;
+		};
+		/* suppression on protection */
+		struct {
+			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 -  0;
+			uint64_t sop_acc_list		: 61 - 60;
+			uint64_t sop_teid_predictable	: 62 - 61;
+		};
+		/* enhanced suppression on protection 1 */
+		struct {
+			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
+			uint64_t esop1_acc_list_or_dat	: 62 - 61;
+		};
+		/* enhanced suppression on protection 2 */
+		struct {
+			uint64_t /* pad */		: 56 -  0;
+			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_0	: 57 - 56;
+			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 - 57;
+			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_1	: 61 - 60;
+			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_2	: 62 - 61;
+		};
 	};
 };
 
+enum prot_code {
+	PROT_KEY_LAP,
+	PROT_DAT,
+	PROT_KEY,
+	PROT_ACC_LIST,
+	PROT_LAP,
+	PROT_IEP,
+};
+
+static inline enum prot_code teid_esop2_prot_code(union teid teid)
+{
+	int code = 0;
+
+	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_0;
+	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_1;
+	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_2;
+	return (enum prot_code)code;
+}
+
 void register_pgm_cleanup_func(void (*f)(void));
 void handle_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack);
 void handle_ext_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack);
diff --git a/lib/s390x/fault.h b/lib/s390x/fault.h
index 726da2f0..867997f2 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/fault.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/fault.h
@@ -11,32 +11,16 @@
 #define _S390X_FAULT_H_
 
 #include <bitops.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
 
 /* Instruction execution prevention, i.e. no-execute, 101 */
-static inline bool prot_is_iep(uint64_t teid)
+static inline bool prot_is_iep(union teid teid)
 {
-	if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
-		return true;
-
-	return false;
-}
-
-/* Standard DAT exception, 001 */
-static inline bool prot_is_datp(uint64_t teid)
-{
-	if (!test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
-		return true;
-
-	return false;
-}
-
-/* Low-address protection exception, 100 */
-static inline bool prot_is_lap(uint64_t teid)
-{
-	if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
-		return true;
-
-	return false;
+	if (!test_facility(130))
+		return false;
+	/* IEP installed -> ESOP2 installed */
+	return teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) == PROT_IEP;
 }
 
 void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid);
diff --git a/lib/s390x/fault.c b/lib/s390x/fault.c
index efa62fcb..02b3c098 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/fault.c
+++ b/lib/s390x/fault.c
@@ -13,35 +13,63 @@
 #include <asm/page.h>
 #include <fault.h>
 
-/* Decodes the protection exceptions we'll most likely see */
-static void print_decode_pgm_prot(uint64_t teid)
-{
-	if (prot_is_lap(teid)) {
-		printf("Type: LAP\n");
-		return;
-	}
-
-	if (prot_is_iep(teid)) {
-		printf("Type: IEP\n");
-		return;
-	}
 
-	if (prot_is_datp(teid)) {
-		printf("Type: DAT\n");
-		return;
+static void print_decode_pgm_prot(union teid teid, bool dat)
+{
+	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
+	case SOP_NONE:
+		printf("Type: ?\n");
+		break;
+	case SOP_BASIC:
+		if (teid.sop_teid_predictable && dat && teid.sop_acc_list)
+			printf("Type: ACC\n");
+		else
+			printf("Type: ?\n");
+		break;
+	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
+		if (teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat) {
+			if (teid.sop_acc_list)
+				printf("Type: ACC\n");
+			else
+				printf("Type: DAT\n");
+		} else {
+			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
+		}
+		break;
+	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
+		switch (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)) {
+		case PROT_KEY_LAP:
+			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
+			break;
+		case PROT_DAT:
+			printf("Type: DAT\n");
+			break;
+		case PROT_KEY:
+			printf("Type: KEY\n");
+			break;
+		case PROT_ACC_LIST:
+			printf("Type: ACC\n");
+			break;
+		case PROT_LAP:
+			printf("Type: LAP\n");
+			break;
+		case PROT_IEP:
+			printf("Type: IEP\n");
+			break;
+		}
 	}
 }
 
-void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
+void print_decode_teid(uint64_t raw_teid)
 {
-	int asce_id = teid & 3;
+	union teid teid = { .val = raw_teid };
 	bool dat = lowcore.pgm_old_psw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT;
 
 	printf("Memory exception information:\n");
 	printf("DAT: %s\n", dat ? "on" : "off");
 
 	printf("AS: ");
-	switch (asce_id) {
+	switch (teid.asce_id) {
 	case AS_PRIM:
 		printf("Primary\n");
 		break;
@@ -57,7 +85,7 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
 	}
 
 	if (lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION)
-		print_decode_pgm_prot(teid);
+		print_decode_pgm_prot(teid, dat);
 
 	/*
 	 * If teid bit 61 is off for these two exception the reported
@@ -65,10 +93,10 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
 	 */
 	if ((lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS ||
 	     lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION) &&
-	    !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) {
-		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", teid & PAGE_MASK);
+	    !teid.sop_teid_predictable) {
+		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
 		return;
 	}
-	printf("TEID: %lx\n", teid);
-	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", teid & PAGE_MASK);
+	printf("TEID: %lx\n", raw_teid);
+	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
 }
diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
index 6da20c44..ac3d1ecd 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
+++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
 		break;
 	case PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION:
 		/* Handling for iep.c test case. */
-		if (prot_is_iep(lowcore.trans_exc_id))
+		if (prot_is_iep((union teid) { .val = lowcore.trans_exc_id }))
 			/*
 			 * We branched to the instruction that caused
 			 * the exception so we can use the return
diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
index c6c25042..af442039 100644
--- a/s390x/edat.c
+++ b/s390x/edat.c
@@ -37,14 +37,20 @@ static bool check_pgm_prot(void *ptr)
 		return false;
 
 	teid.val = lowcore.trans_exc_id;
-
-	/*
-	 * depending on the presence of the ESOP feature, the rest of the
-	 * field might or might not be meaningful when the m field is 0.
-	 */
-	if (!teid.m)
+	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
+	case SOP_NONE:
 		return true;
-	return (!teid.acc_list_prot && !teid.asce_id &&
+	case SOP_BASIC:
+		if (!teid.sop_teid_predictable)
+			return true;
+	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
+		if (!teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat)
+			return false;
+	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
+		if (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) != 1)
+			return false;
+	}
+	return (!teid.sop_acc_list && !teid.asce_id &&
 		(teid.addr == ((unsigned long)ptr >> PAGE_SHIFT)));
 }
 
-- 
2.33.1

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/3] s390x: lib: SOP facility query function

[Claudio Imbrenda]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:08:49 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Add function returning which suppression-on-protection facility is
> installed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>  lib/s390x/asm/facility.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/s390x/sclp.h         |  4 ++++
>  lib/s390x/sclp.c         |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h b/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
> index 49380203..a66fe56a 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/facility.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <asm/facility.h>
>  #include <asm/arch_def.h>
>  #include <bitops.h>
> +#include <sclp.h>
>  
>  #define NB_STFL_DOUBLEWORDS 32
>  extern uint64_t stfl_doublewords[];
> @@ -42,4 +43,24 @@ static inline void setup_facilities(void)
>  		stfle(stfl_doublewords, NB_STFL_DOUBLEWORDS);
>  }
>  
> +enum supp_on_prot_facility {
> +	SOP_NONE,
> +	SOP_BASIC,
> +	SOP_ENHANCED_1,
> +	SOP_ENHANCED_2,
> +};
> +
> +static inline enum supp_on_prot_facility get_supp_on_prot_facility(void)
> +{
> +	if (sclp_facilities.has_esop) {
> +		if (test_facility(131)) /* side-effect-access facility */
> +			return SOP_ENHANCED_2;
> +		else
> +			return SOP_ENHANCED_1;
> +	}
> +	if (sclp_facilities.has_sop)
> +		return SOP_BASIC;
> +	return SOP_NONE;
> +}
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> index 3488f4d2..853529bf 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> @@ -123,7 +123,9 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>  	uint64_t has_cei : 1;
>  
>  	uint64_t has_diag318 : 1;
> +	uint64_t has_sop : 1;
>  	uint64_t has_gsls : 1;
> +	uint64_t has_esop : 1;
>  	uint64_t has_cmma : 1;
>  	uint64_t has_64bscao : 1;
>  	uint64_t has_esca : 1;
> @@ -134,7 +136,9 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>  };
>  
>  /* bit number within a certain byte */
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
>  #define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
>  #define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
>  #define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
>  #define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
> index b8204c5f..e6017f64 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,9 @@ void sclp_facilities_setup(void)
>  	cpu = sclp_get_cpu_entries();
>  	if (read_info->offset_cpu > 134)
>  		sclp_facilities.has_diag318 = read_info->byte_134_diag318;
> +	sclp_facilities.has_sop = sclp_feat_check(80, SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP);
>  	sclp_facilities.has_gsls = sclp_feat_check(85, SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS);
> +	sclp_facilities.has_esop = sclp_feat_check(85, SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP);
>  	sclp_facilities.has_kss = sclp_feat_check(98, SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS);
>  	sclp_facilities.has_cmma = sclp_feat_check(116, SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA);
>  	sclp_facilities.has_64bscao = sclp_feat_check(116, SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO);

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[Claudio Imbrenda]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:08:50 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> The translation-exception identification (TEID) contains information to
> identify the cause of certain program exceptions, including translation
> exceptions occurring during dynamic address translation, as well as
> protection exceptions.
> The meaning of fields in the TEID is complex, depending on the exception
> occurring and various potentially installed facilities.
> 
> Rework the type describing the TEID, in order to ease decoding.
> Change the existing code interpreting the TEID and extend it to take the
> installed suppression-on-protection facility into account.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  lib/s390x/fault.h         | 30 ++++------------
>  lib/s390x/fault.c         | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  lib/s390x/interrupt.c     |  2 +-
>  s390x/edat.c              | 20 +++++++----
>  5 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> index d9ab0bd7..8d5bfbf9 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> @@ -20,23 +20,61 @@
>  
>  union teid {
>  	unsigned long val;
> -	struct {
> -		unsigned long addr:52;
> -		unsigned long fetch:1;
> -		unsigned long store:1;
> -		unsigned long reserved:6;
> -		unsigned long acc_list_prot:1;
> -		/*
> -		 * depending on the exception and the installed facilities,
> -		 * the m field can indicate several different things,
> -		 * including whether the exception was triggered by a MVPG
> -		 * instruction, or whether the addr field is meaningful
> -		 */
> -		unsigned long m:1;
> -		unsigned long asce_id:2;
> +	union {
> +		/* common fields DAT exc & protection exc */
> +		struct {
> +			uint64_t addr			: 52 -  0;
> +			uint64_t acc_exc_f_s		: 54 - 52;
> +			uint64_t side_effect_acc	: 55 - 54;
> +			uint64_t /* reserved */		: 55 - 54;

shouldn't this ^ be 62 - 55 ?

> +			uint64_t asce_id		: 64 - 62;
> +		};
> +		/* DAT exc */
> +		struct {
> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
> +			uint64_t dat_move_page		: 62 - 61;
> +		};
> +		/* suppression on protection */
> +		struct {
> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 -  0;
> +			uint64_t sop_acc_list		: 61 - 60;
> +			uint64_t sop_teid_predictable	: 62 - 61;
> +		};
> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 1 */
> +		struct {
> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;

60 - 0

> +			uint64_t esop1_acc_list_or_dat	: 62 - 61;

61 - 60

and then:

uint64_t esop1_teid_predictable : 62 - 61;

> +		};
> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 2 */
> +		struct {
> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 56 -  0;
> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_0	: 57 - 56;
> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 - 57;
> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_1	: 61 - 60;
> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_2	: 62 - 61;
> +		};
>  	};
>  };
>  
> +enum prot_code {
> +	PROT_KEY_LAP,
> +	PROT_DAT,
> +	PROT_KEY,
> +	PROT_ACC_LIST,
> +	PROT_LAP,
> +	PROT_IEP,

I would still also define two PROT_INVALID or PROT_RESERVED

just to avoid surprises

> +};
> +
> +static inline enum prot_code teid_esop2_prot_code(union teid teid)
> +{
> +	int code = 0;
> +
> +	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_0;
> +	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_1;
> +	code = code << 1 | teid.esop2_prot_code_2;
> +	return (enum prot_code)code;

return (enum prot_code)(teid.esop2_prot_code_0 << 2 |
			teid.esop2_prot_code_1 << 1 |
			teid.esop2_prot_code_2);

> +}
> +
>  void register_pgm_cleanup_func(void (*f)(void));
>  void handle_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack);
>  void handle_ext_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack);
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/fault.h b/lib/s390x/fault.h
> index 726da2f0..867997f2 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/fault.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/fault.h
> @@ -11,32 +11,16 @@
>  #define _S390X_FAULT_H_
>  
>  #include <bitops.h>
> +#include <asm/facility.h>
> +#include <asm/interrupt.h>
>  
>  /* Instruction execution prevention, i.e. no-execute, 101 */
> -static inline bool prot_is_iep(uint64_t teid)
> +static inline bool prot_is_iep(union teid teid)
>  {
> -	if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
> -		return true;
> -
> -	return false;
> -}
> -
> -/* Standard DAT exception, 001 */
> -static inline bool prot_is_datp(uint64_t teid)
> -{
> -	if (!test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
> -		return true;
> -
> -	return false;
> -}
> -
> -/* Low-address protection exception, 100 */
> -static inline bool prot_is_lap(uint64_t teid)
> -{
> -	if (test_bit_inv(56, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(60, &teid) && !test_bit_inv(61, &teid))
> -		return true;
> -
> -	return false;
> +	if (!test_facility(130))
> +		return false;
> +	/* IEP installed -> ESOP2 installed */
> +	return teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) == PROT_IEP;
>  }
>  
>  void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid);
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/fault.c b/lib/s390x/fault.c
> index efa62fcb..02b3c098 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/fault.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/fault.c
> @@ -13,35 +13,63 @@
>  #include <asm/page.h>
>  #include <fault.h>
>  
> -/* Decodes the protection exceptions we'll most likely see */
> -static void print_decode_pgm_prot(uint64_t teid)
> -{
> -	if (prot_is_lap(teid)) {
> -		printf("Type: LAP\n");
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (prot_is_iep(teid)) {
> -		printf("Type: IEP\n");
> -		return;
> -	}
>  
> -	if (prot_is_datp(teid)) {
> -		printf("Type: DAT\n");
> -		return;
> +static void print_decode_pgm_prot(union teid teid, bool dat)
> +{
> +	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
> +	case SOP_NONE:
> +		printf("Type: ?\n");
> +		break;
> +	case SOP_BASIC:
> +		if (teid.sop_teid_predictable && dat && teid.sop_acc_list)
> +			printf("Type: ACC\n");
> +		else
> +			printf("Type: ?\n");
> +		break;
> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
> +		if (teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat) {
> +			if (teid.sop_acc_list)
> +				printf("Type: ACC\n");
> +			else
> +				printf("Type: DAT\n");
> +		} else {
> +			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
> +		}
> +		break;
> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
> +		switch (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)) {

I wonder if it weren't easier to do

static const char * const prot_strings[6] = {"KEY or LAP", "DAT", ...};
printf("Type: %s\n", prot_strings[teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)]);

> +		case PROT_KEY_LAP:
> +			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
> +			break;
> +		case PROT_DAT:
> +			printf("Type: DAT\n");
> +			break;
> +		case PROT_KEY:
> +			printf("Type: KEY\n");
> +			break;
> +		case PROT_ACC_LIST:
> +			printf("Type: ACC\n");
> +			break;
> +		case PROT_LAP:
> +			printf("Type: LAP\n");
> +			break;
> +		case PROT_IEP:
> +			printf("Type: IEP\n");
> +			break;
> +		}
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
> +void print_decode_teid(uint64_t raw_teid)
>  {
> -	int asce_id = teid & 3;
> +	union teid teid = { .val = raw_teid };
>  	bool dat = lowcore.pgm_old_psw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT;
>  
>  	printf("Memory exception information:\n");
>  	printf("DAT: %s\n", dat ? "on" : "off");
>  
>  	printf("AS: ");
> -	switch (asce_id) {
> +	switch (teid.asce_id) {
>  	case AS_PRIM:
>  		printf("Primary\n");
>  		break;
> @@ -57,7 +85,7 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION)
> -		print_decode_pgm_prot(teid);
> +		print_decode_pgm_prot(teid, dat);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If teid bit 61 is off for these two exception the reported
> @@ -65,10 +93,10 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
>  	 */
>  	if ((lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS ||
>  	     lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION) &&
> -	    !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) {
> -		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", teid & PAGE_MASK);
> +	    !teid.sop_teid_predictable) {
> +		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
>  		return;
>  	}
> -	printf("TEID: %lx\n", teid);
> -	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", teid & PAGE_MASK);
> +	printf("TEID: %lx\n", raw_teid);
> +	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);

teid.addr << PAGE_SHIFT ?

>  }
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> index 6da20c44..ac3d1ecd 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
>  		break;
>  	case PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION:
>  		/* Handling for iep.c test case. */
> -		if (prot_is_iep(lowcore.trans_exc_id))
> +		if (prot_is_iep((union teid) { .val = lowcore.trans_exc_id }))
>  			/*
>  			 * We branched to the instruction that caused
>  			 * the exception so we can use the return
> diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
> index c6c25042..af442039 100644
> --- a/s390x/edat.c
> +++ b/s390x/edat.c
> @@ -37,14 +37,20 @@ static bool check_pgm_prot(void *ptr)
>  		return false;
>  
>  	teid.val = lowcore.trans_exc_id;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * depending on the presence of the ESOP feature, the rest of the
> -	 * field might or might not be meaningful when the m field is 0.
> -	 */
> -	if (!teid.m)
> +	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
> +	case SOP_NONE:
>  		return true;
> -	return (!teid.acc_list_prot && !teid.asce_id &&
> +	case SOP_BASIC:
> +		if (!teid.sop_teid_predictable)
> +			return true;

add:

if (teid.sop_acc_list)
	return false;

> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:

you need to handle the unpredictable case here too

> +		if (!teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat)
> +			return false;

so you return false the it is DAT... but if it is not DAT, it's
access-control-list... 

you might want to replace this whole case with:

return !teid.esop1_teid_predictable;

(although I don't understand why you want to exclude DAT here)

> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
> +		if (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) != 1)

why not using the PROT_DAT enum?
also, handle the PROT_ACC_LIST too

also, add:

if (PROT_KEY_LAP)
	return true;

because in that case you don't have the address part.



but at this point I wonder if you can't just rewrite this function with
an additional enum prot_code parameter, to specify the exact type of
exception you're expecting

> +			return false;
> +	}
> +	return (!teid.sop_acc_list && !teid.asce_id &&
>  		(teid.addr == ((unsigned long)ptr >> PAGE_SHIFT)));
>  }
>  

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

On 5/24/22 16:40, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:08:50 +0200
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> The translation-exception identification (TEID) contains information to
>> identify the cause of certain program exceptions, including translation
>> exceptions occurring during dynamic address translation, as well as
>> protection exceptions.
>> The meaning of fields in the TEID is complex, depending on the exception
>> occurring and various potentially installed facilities.
>>
>> Rework the type describing the TEID, in order to ease decoding.
>> Change the existing code interpreting the TEID and extend it to take the
>> installed suppression-on-protection facility into account.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>  lib/s390x/fault.h         | 30 ++++------------
>>  lib/s390x/fault.c         | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>  lib/s390x/interrupt.c     |  2 +-
>>  s390x/edat.c              | 20 +++++++----
>>  5 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
>> index d9ab0bd7..8d5bfbf9 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
>> @@ -20,23 +20,61 @@
>>  
>>  union teid {
>>  	unsigned long val;
>> -	struct {
>> -		unsigned long addr:52;
>> -		unsigned long fetch:1;
>> -		unsigned long store:1;
>> -		unsigned long reserved:6;
>> -		unsigned long acc_list_prot:1;
>> -		/*
>> -		 * depending on the exception and the installed facilities,
>> -		 * the m field can indicate several different things,
>> -		 * including whether the exception was triggered by a MVPG
>> -		 * instruction, or whether the addr field is meaningful
>> -		 */
>> -		unsigned long m:1;
>> -		unsigned long asce_id:2;
>> +	union {
>> +		/* common fields DAT exc & protection exc */
>> +		struct {
>> +			uint64_t addr			: 52 -  0;
>> +			uint64_t acc_exc_f_s		: 54 - 52;
>> +			uint64_t side_effect_acc	: 55 - 54;
>> +			uint64_t /* reserved */		: 55 - 54;
> 
> shouldn't this ^ be 62 - 55 ?

Oops, yes.
> 
>> +			uint64_t asce_id		: 64 - 62;
>> +		};
>> +		/* DAT exc */
>> +		struct {
>> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
>> +			uint64_t dat_move_page		: 62 - 61;
>> +		};
>> +		/* suppression on protection */
>> +		struct {
>> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 -  0;
>> +			uint64_t sop_acc_list		: 61 - 60;
>> +			uint64_t sop_teid_predictable	: 62 - 61;
>> +		};
>> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 1 */
>> +		struct {
>> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
> 
> 60 - 0
> 
>> +			uint64_t esop1_acc_list_or_dat	: 62 - 61;
> 
> 61 - 60
> 
> and then:
> 
> uint64_t esop1_teid_predictable : 62 - 61;
> 
Ah, no, but I see how it is confusing.
If bit 61 is one then the exception is due to access list or DAT.
That's why its called acc_list_or_dat.
If it is zero it's due to low address or key and the rest of the TEID
is unpredictable. So this is an alias of sop_teid_predictable.

>> +		};
>> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 2 */
>> +		struct {
>> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 56 -  0;
>> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_0	: 57 - 56;
>> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 - 57;
>> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_1	: 61 - 60;
>> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_2	: 62 - 61;
>> +		};
>>  	};
>>  };
>>  
>> +enum prot_code {
>> +	PROT_KEY_LAP,
>> +	PROT_DAT,
>> +	PROT_KEY,
>> +	PROT_ACC_LIST,
>> +	PROT_LAP,
>> +	PROT_IEP,
> 
> I would still also define two PROT_INVALID or PROT_RESERVED
> 
> just to avoid surprises
> 
I guess the values are reserved, but maybe an assert would be better?
Then we'd be notified to fix the test.

[...]

>> +static void print_decode_pgm_prot(union teid teid, bool dat)
>> +{
>> +	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
>> +	case SOP_NONE:
>> +		printf("Type: ?\n");
>> +		break;
>> +	case SOP_BASIC:
>> +		if (teid.sop_teid_predictable && dat && teid.sop_acc_list)
>> +			printf("Type: ACC\n");
>> +		else
>> +			printf("Type: ?\n");
>> +		break;
>> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
>> +		if (teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat) {
>> +			if (teid.sop_acc_list)
>> +				printf("Type: ACC\n");
>> +			else
>> +				printf("Type: DAT\n");
>> +		} else {
>> +			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
>> +		}
>> +		break;
>> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
>> +		switch (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)) {
> 
> I wonder if it weren't easier to do
> 
> static const char * const prot_strings[6] = {"KEY or LAP", "DAT", ...};
> printf("Type: %s\n", prot_strings[teid_esop2_prot_code(teid)]);
> 
Yeah, good idea.

>> +		case PROT_KEY_LAP:
>> +			printf("Type: KEY or LAP\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		case PROT_DAT:
>> +			printf("Type: DAT\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		case PROT_KEY:
>> +			printf("Type: KEY\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		case PROT_ACC_LIST:
>> +			printf("Type: ACC\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		case PROT_LAP:
>> +			printf("Type: LAP\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		case PROT_IEP:
>> +			printf("Type: IEP\n");
>> +			break;
>> +		}
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  

[...]

>> @@ -65,10 +93,10 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
>>  	 */
>>  	if ((lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS ||
>>  	     lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION) &&
>> -	    !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) {
>> -		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", teid & PAGE_MASK);
>> +	    !teid.sop_teid_predictable) {
>> +		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>> -	printf("TEID: %lx\n", teid);
>> -	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", teid & PAGE_MASK);
>> +	printf("TEID: %lx\n", raw_teid);
>> +	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
> 
> teid.addr << PAGE_SHIFT ?

I got compiler warnings because teid.addr is 52 bit.
> 
>>  }
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> index 6da20c44..ac3d1ecd 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
>>  		break;
>>  	case PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION:
>>  		/* Handling for iep.c test case. */
>> -		if (prot_is_iep(lowcore.trans_exc_id))
>> +		if (prot_is_iep((union teid) { .val = lowcore.trans_exc_id }))
>>  			/*
>>  			 * We branched to the instruction that caused
>>  			 * the exception so we can use the return
>> diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
>> index c6c25042..af442039 100644
>> --- a/s390x/edat.c
>> +++ b/s390x/edat.c
>> @@ -37,14 +37,20 @@ static bool check_pgm_prot(void *ptr)
>>  		return false;
>>  
>>  	teid.val = lowcore.trans_exc_id;
>> -
>> -	/*
>> -	 * depending on the presence of the ESOP feature, the rest of the
>> -	 * field might or might not be meaningful when the m field is 0.
>> -	 */
>> -	if (!teid.m)
>> +	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
>> +	case SOP_NONE:
>>  		return true;
>> -	return (!teid.acc_list_prot && !teid.asce_id &&
>> +	case SOP_BASIC:
>> +		if (!teid.sop_teid_predictable)
>> +			return true;
> 
This function is mostly correct, except it's missing
break; statements (so not correct at all :)).

> add:
> 
> if (teid.sop_acc_list)
> 	return false;
> 
Will be taken care of by the return statement at the very bottom.

>> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:
> 
> you need to handle the unpredictable case here too
> 
>> +		if (!teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat)
>> +			return false;
>
> so you return false the it is DAT... but if it is not DAT, it's
> access-control-list... 
> 
So this makes sense if instead you think about bit 61.
It also shows the rational for the variable name if you read it as
"if the exception was not due to either access list or DAT", so we
return false in case we know it was not DAT.

> you might want to replace this whole case with:
> 
> return !teid.esop1_teid_predictable;
> 
> (although I don't understand why you want to exclude DAT here)
> 
>> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
>> +		if (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) != 1)
> 
> why not using the PROT_DAT enum?

Just forgot.

> also, handle the PROT_ACC_LIST too
> 
> also, add:
> 
> if (PROT_KEY_LAP)
> 	return true;

Am I misunderstanding the edat test? We're expecting nothing but
DAT protection exceptions, no? So everything else is a test failure.
> 
> because in that case you don't have the address part.
> 
> 
> 
> but at this point I wonder if you can't just rewrite this function with
> an additional enum prot_code parameter, to specify the exact type of
> exception you're expecting

Maybe, but I don't think it's worth it. The logic is complicated and I'd
prefer to keep it as simple as possible and keeping it specific to the test
helps with that, instead of generalizing it to all possibilities.
> 
>> +			return false;
>> +	}
>> +	return (!teid.sop_acc_list && !teid.asce_id &&
>>  		(teid.addr == ((unsigned long)ptr >> PAGE_SHIFT)));
>>  }
>>  
> 

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] s390x: Rework TEID decoding and usage

[Claudio Imbrenda]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 15:49:33 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

[...]

> >   
> >> +			uint64_t asce_id		: 64 - 62;
> >> +		};
> >> +		/* DAT exc */
> >> +		struct {
> >> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;
> >> +			uint64_t dat_move_page		: 62 - 61;
> >> +		};
> >> +		/* suppression on protection */
> >> +		struct {
> >> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 -  0;
> >> +			uint64_t sop_acc_list		: 61 - 60;
> >> +			uint64_t sop_teid_predictable	: 62 - 61;
> >> +		};
> >> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 1 */
> >> +		struct {
> >> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 61 -  0;  
> > 
> > 60 - 0
> >   
> >> +			uint64_t esop1_acc_list_or_dat	: 62 - 61;  
> > 
> > 61 - 60
> > 
> > and then:
> > 
> > uint64_t esop1_teid_predictable : 62 - 61;
> >   
> Ah, no, but I see how it is confusing.
> If bit 61 is one then the exception is due to access list or DAT.

ok

> That's why its called acc_list_or_dat.
> If it is zero it's due to low address or key and the rest of the TEID
> is unpredictable. So this is an alias of sop_teid_predictable.

ok, but then you need a definition for bit 60, which tells whether it
is DAT or ACL. (but see below)

> 
> >> +		};
> >> +		/* enhanced suppression on protection 2 */
> >> +		struct {
> >> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 56 -  0;
> >> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_0	: 57 - 56;
> >> +			uint64_t /* pad */		: 60 - 57;
> >> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_1	: 61 - 60;
> >> +			uint64_t esop2_prot_code_2	: 62 - 61;
> >> +		};
> >>  	};
> >>  };
> >>  
> >> +enum prot_code {
> >> +	PROT_KEY_LAP,
> >> +	PROT_DAT,
> >> +	PROT_KEY,
> >> +	PROT_ACC_LIST,
> >> +	PROT_LAP,
> >> +	PROT_IEP,  
> > 
> > I would still also define two PROT_INVALID or PROT_RESERVED
> > 
> > just to avoid surprises
> >   
> I guess the values are reserved, but maybe an assert would be better?

ok

> Then we'd be notified to fix the test.
> 

[...]

> >> @@ -65,10 +93,10 @@ void print_decode_teid(uint64_t teid)
> >>  	 */
> >>  	if ((lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_ACCESS ||
> >>  	     lowcore.pgm_int_code == PGM_INT_CODE_SECURE_STOR_VIOLATION) &&
> >> -	    !test_bit_inv(61, &teid)) {
> >> -		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", teid & PAGE_MASK);
> >> +	    !teid.sop_teid_predictable) {
> >> +		printf("Address: %lx, unpredictable\n ", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);
> >>  		return;
> >>  	}
> >> -	printf("TEID: %lx\n", teid);
> >> -	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", teid & PAGE_MASK);
> >> +	printf("TEID: %lx\n", raw_teid);
> >> +	printf("Address: %lx\n\n", raw_teid & PAGE_MASK);  
> > 
> > teid.addr << PAGE_SHIFT ?  
> 
> I got compiler warnings because teid.addr is 52 bit.

oufff... ok forget it then, keep it as it is

> >   
> >>  }
> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> >> index 6da20c44..ac3d1ecd 100644
> >> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> >> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> >> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
> >>  		break;
> >>  	case PGM_INT_CODE_PROTECTION:
> >>  		/* Handling for iep.c test case. */
> >> -		if (prot_is_iep(lowcore.trans_exc_id))
> >> +		if (prot_is_iep((union teid) { .val = lowcore.trans_exc_id }))
> >>  			/*
> >>  			 * We branched to the instruction that caused
> >>  			 * the exception so we can use the return
> >> diff --git a/s390x/edat.c b/s390x/edat.c
> >> index c6c25042..af442039 100644
> >> --- a/s390x/edat.c
> >> +++ b/s390x/edat.c
> >> @@ -37,14 +37,20 @@ static bool check_pgm_prot(void *ptr)
> >>  		return false;
> >>  
> >>  	teid.val = lowcore.trans_exc_id;
> >> -
> >> -	/*
> >> -	 * depending on the presence of the ESOP feature, the rest of the
> >> -	 * field might or might not be meaningful when the m field is 0.
> >> -	 */
> >> -	if (!teid.m)
> >> +	switch (get_supp_on_prot_facility()) {
> >> +	case SOP_NONE:
> >>  		return true;
> >> -	return (!teid.acc_list_prot && !teid.asce_id &&
> >> +	case SOP_BASIC:
> >> +		if (!teid.sop_teid_predictable)
> >> +			return true;  
> >   
> This function is mostly correct, except it's missing
> break; statements (so not correct at all :)).
> 
> > add:
> > 
> > if (teid.sop_acc_list)
> > 	return false;
> >   
> Will be taken care of by the return statement at the very bottom.
> 
> >> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_1:  
> > 
> > you need to handle the unpredictable case here too
> >   
> >> +		if (!teid.esop1_acc_list_or_dat)
> >> +			return false;  
> >
> > so you return false the it is DAT... but if it is not DAT, it's
> > access-control-list... 
> >   
> So this makes sense if instead you think about bit 61.
> It also shows the rational for the variable name if you read it as
> "if the exception was not due to either access list or DAT", so we
> return false in case we know it was not DAT.

ahh I see.

at this point I think it would be better to simply remove that bit, and
only use sop_teid_predictable and sop_acc_list

> 
> > you might want to replace this whole case with:
> > 
> > return !teid.esop1_teid_predictable;
> > 
> > (although I don't understand why you want to exclude DAT here)
> >   
> >> +	case SOP_ENHANCED_2:
> >> +		if (teid_esop2_prot_code(teid) != 1)  
> > 
> > why not using the PROT_DAT enum?  
> 
> Just forgot.
> 
> > also, handle the PROT_ACC_LIST too
> > 
> > also, add:
> > 
> > if (PROT_KEY_LAP)
> > 	return true;  
> 
> Am I misunderstanding the edat test? We're expecting nothing but
> DAT protection exceptions, no? So everything else is a test failure.

then return false

currently you would not handle that correctly, I think

> > 
> > because in that case you don't have the address part.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > but at this point I wonder if you can't just rewrite this function with
> > an additional enum prot_code parameter, to specify the exact type of
> > exception you're expecting  
> 
> Maybe, but I don't think it's worth it. The logic is complicated and I'd

fair enough

> prefer to keep it as simple as possible and keeping it specific to the test
> helps with that, instead of generalizing it to all possibilities.
> >   
> >> +			return false;
> >> +	}
> >> +	return (!teid.sop_acc_list && !teid.asce_id &&
> >>  		(teid.addr == ((unsigned long)ptr >> PAGE_SHIFT)));
> >>  }
> >>    
> >   
> 

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

On 5/10/22 19:13, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 5/5/22 14:46, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
>> can be defined as they are in the documentation.
>>
>> Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> The fixing part of this is:
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> But please add the (E)SOP bits in the other patches.

Oh, yeah, that slipped by me.
> 
>> ---
>>   lib/s390x/sclp.h | 16 +++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> index fead007a..4ce2209f 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> @@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>>   };
>>     /* bit number within a certain byte */
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS        7
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS        0
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO    7
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA        6
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA        3
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI        6
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS        5
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP        2
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS        0
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP        6
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS        7
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO    0
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA        1
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA        4
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI        1
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS        2
>>     typedef struct ReadInfo {
>>       SCCBHeader h;
> 

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Janosch Frank]

On 5/6/22 17:31, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Thu,  5 May 2022 14:46:54 +0200
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
>> can be defined as they are in the documentation.
> 
> this means we had it wrong all along and we somehow never noticed

That tends to happen when you add definitions and never actually use 
them. :)

> 
> ooops!
> 
> anyway:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
> 
>>
>> Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/s390x/sclp.h | 16 +++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> index fead007a..4ce2209f 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>> @@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>>   };
>>   
>>   /* bit number within a certain byte */
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		7
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		0
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	7
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		6
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		3
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		6
>> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		5
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		4
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		1
>> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		2
>>   
>>   typedef struct ReadInfo {
>>   	SCCBHeader h;
> 

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Janosch Frank]

On 5/5/22 14:46, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
> can be defined as they are in the documentation.
> 
> Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>

The fixing part of this is:
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>

But please add the (E)SOP bits in the other patches.

> ---
>   lib/s390x/sclp.h | 16 +++++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> index fead007a..4ce2209f 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> @@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>   };
>   
>   /* bit number within a certain byte */
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		7
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		0
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	7
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		6
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		3
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		6
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		5
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		4
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		1
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		2
>   
>   typedef struct ReadInfo {
>   	SCCBHeader h;

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Claudio Imbrenda]

On Thu,  5 May 2022 14:46:54 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
> can be defined as they are in the documentation.

this means we had it wrong all along and we somehow never noticed

ooops!

anyway:

Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>

> 
> Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  lib/s390x/sclp.h | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> index fead007a..4ce2209f 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
> @@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
>  };
>  
>  /* bit number within a certain byte */
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		7
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		0
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	7
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		6
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		3
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		6
> -#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		5
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		4
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		1
> +#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		2
>  
>  typedef struct ReadInfo {
>  	SCCBHeader h;

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] s390x: Fix sclp facility bit numbers

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch]

sclp_feat_check takes care of adjusting the bit numbering such that they
can be defined as they are in the documentation.

Fixes: 4dd649c8 ("lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing")
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/sclp.h | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
index fead007a..4ce2209f 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
@@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ struct sclp_facilities {
 };
 
 /* bit number within a certain byte */
-#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		7
-#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		0
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	7
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		6
-#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		3
-#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		6
-#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		5
+#define SCLP_FEAT_80_BIT_SOP		2
+#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_GSLS		0
+#define SCLP_FEAT_85_BIT_ESOP		6
+#define SCLP_FEAT_98_BIT_KSS		7
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_64BSCAO	0
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_CMMA		1
+#define SCLP_FEAT_116_BIT_ESCA		4
+#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_PFMFI		1
+#define SCLP_FEAT_117_BIT_IBS		2
 
 typedef struct ReadInfo {
 	SCCBHeader h;
-- 
2.33.1