Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate suppression

From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate suppression
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:30:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8095d0de-dd99-0388-b1d4-e59b01dc4be0@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220425100147.1755340-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>

Am 25.04.22 um 12:01 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> If a memop fails due to key checked protection, after already having
> written to the guest, don't indicate suppression to the guest, as that
> would imply that memory wasn't modified.
> 
> This could be considered a fix to the code introducing storage key
> support, however this is a bug in KVM only if we emulate an
> instructions writing to an operand spanning multiple pages, which I
> don't believe we do.
> 

Thanks applied. I think it makes sense for 5.18 nevertheless.

> v1 -> v2
>   * Reword commit message of patch 1
> 
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch (2):
>    KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying, failing memop
>    KVM: s390: selftest: Test suppression indication on key prot exception
> 
>   arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c                   | 47 ++++++++++++++---------
>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>   2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> base-commit: af2d861d4cd2a4da5137f795ee3509e6f944a25b