Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying, failing memop

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 1/2] KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying, failing memop
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:01:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f54b2c71-dfd9-1f47-d75d-f58bbc6c6764@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220425100147.1755340-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com>

Am 25.04.22 um 12:01 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> If user space uses a memop to emulate an instruction and that
> memop fails, the execution of the instruction ends.
> Instruction execution can end in different ways, one of which is
> suppression, which requires that the instruction execute like a no-op.
> A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key
> protection can modified guest memory, as a result, the likely
> correct ending is termination. Therefore do not indicate a
> suppressing instruction ending in this case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)


Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>