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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86688C433F5 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61365611C3 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235696AbhKPMAi (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:00:38 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:16072 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235706AbhKPMA1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:00:27 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AGAtM3Q000623; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:30 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=kgenKM1z3Re+ayfQBXdGzVLkvYkWFHY1JFSryHJKH3I=; b=hbCUOs4+g0Li8mzIYs6qwNNxL73xpRicdVZQf1pIX0Mb2F+EDH0BmNa2ldjYYe5CMaZu 6SbEt16PJsv+I5s438VvoSmpBoGJ+35FhGJgjI5O7NWHOzRDTlnqjgBl9uP1OQHEQcTc bTlwk7gMtHlld1OaKF8MlE9rsm3+EHxPK0ix8YpV9a0L6Pz849CaLnNiozNd/hGfVyzb 3DhXKOOEa6OKnh/+kPRjLnS8IzMen4/QUaY+ZnqCOwsEG0j/O5nnE8rz9DZSc9Q6q5gQ 39OPJ+Xgc/O8xoZa5SXzPzWacVr223iwvLaN/gEPrdFBc67rDbok0WS2YA78f2qiwpUJ 5A== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3ccbanhcc1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:30 +0000 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1AGBRZh9014829; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:29 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3ccbanhcbk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:29 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AGBmtFS017486; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:27 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ca50axx96-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:27 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1AGBoR0V57016694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:50:27 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F13C11C04A; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EE611C05E; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.66.108] (unknown [9.171.66.108]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:57:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:57:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 1/1] s390x: Add specification exception interception test Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Huth , Janis Schoetterl-Glausch , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda Cc: Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20211022131057.1308851-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <20211022131057.1308851-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <82750b44-6246-3f3c-4562-3d64d7378448@redhat.com> From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch In-Reply-To: <82750b44-6246-3f3c-4562-3d64d7378448@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: AY9QDdTSyg-RMKTBeBF6oHWSNP2yPyR2 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 89Qt1hCWWYmGeDbaMLGb1yp5EbyrXlw1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-16_01,2021-11-16_01,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111160059 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 11/11/21 08:47, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 22/10/2021 15.10, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: >> Check that specification exceptions cause intercepts when >> specification exception interpretation is off. >> Check that specification exceptions caused by program new PSWs >> cause interceptions. >> We cannot assert that non program new PSW specification exceptions >> are interpreted because whether interpretation occurs or not is >> configuration dependent. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch >> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth >> --- > ... >> +    report_prefix_push("on"); >> +    vm.sblk->ecb |= ECB_SPECI; >> +    reset_guest(); >> +    sie(&vm); >> +    /* interpretation on -> configuration dependent if initial exception causes >> +     * interception, but invalid new program PSW must >> +     */ >> +    report(vm.sblk->icptcode == ICPT_PROGI >> +           && vm.sblk->iprcc == PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION, >> +           "Received specification exception intercept"); >> +    if (vm.sblk->gpsw.addr == 0xdeadbeee) >> +        report_info("Interpreted initial exception, intercepted invalid program new PSW exception"); >> +    else >> +        report_info("Did not interpret initial exception"); > >  Hi Janis! > > While using this test in our downstream verification of the backport of the related kernel patch, it occurred that the way of only reporting the interpreted exception via report_info() is rather unfortunate for using this test in automatic regression runs. For such regression runs, it would be good if the test would be marked with FAIL if the exception was not interpreted. I know, the interpretation facility is not always there, but still would it be somehow possible to add such a mode? E.g. by checking the machine generation (is this always available with z15 and newer?) and maybe adding a CLI option to force the hard check (so that e.g. "-f" triggers the failure if the exception has not been interpreted, while running the test without "-f" would still do the old behavior instead)? > >  Thomas > Sounds good, I'll look into it.