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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0E3C00140 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235478AbiHXHkm (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 03:40:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47004 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233356AbiHXHkj (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 03:40:39 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDC703F335 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 00:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27O7SnX2029196 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:36 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : to : cc : references : from : subject : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=LGPbWlxqoaon0sDTOVocq7tajtO+qanuIyfXczUEroM=; b=eCtX74FoJRP6O82cENU98lEeD1sARSHIS+aAPY0vDIszPHzy6cxwSPrQHh8YWidFZKIz jKYr1VDHc7uN7ZpQ92e8yR3X71IaB+f28CS1kNA6CY2M+BCBV7e4uzk27OBEkoCGxa7Q BMTJEah00n3uaKgWO7bfFA8iciDHibsslrr9gY9gMlY8Th6eiPRjnPnlBvwcBiC1FmEj d8jt1SQYOq9UOhcQvOOM5QWjltZP4vEfGucfH5cA76V2YVveXzIoZS9FOJea4WIcrDhD zDzBJ9XLpVtAzcxhTC2GSexyrCZQB4ZDXP0zmeNFZJJC/kC+xoyaloCPyAqDkn89HE7F +g== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3j5fmu0bn2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:36 +0000 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27O7U5kF002363 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:35 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3j5fmu0bjr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:35 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 27O7KPKD013502; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:32 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3j2q893gn4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:32 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 27O7eTNE13500712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:29 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0A2AE053; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CBFAE051; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.145.53.141] (unknown [9.145.53.141]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:40:28 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:40:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Huth , Nico Boehr , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger Cc: imbrenda@linux.ibm.com References: <20220803135851.384805-1-nrb@linux.ibm.com> <20220803135851.384805-2-nrb@linux.ibm.com> From: Janosch Frank Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 1/1] s390x: verify EQBS/SQBS is unavailable In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ut5xLTb8ukUBYNk2wO3e8xehfMYNRbuX X-Proofpoint-GUID: hT7SaZdZZaV5hURjpeX3frmyEgud0M7W X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-08-24_04,2022-08-22_02,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2208240029 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 8/4/22 00:17, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 03/08/2022 15.58, Nico Boehr wrote: >> QEMU doesn't provide EQBS/SQBS instructions, so we should check they >> result in an exception. > > I somewhat fail to see the exact purpose of this patch... QEMU still doesn't > emulate a lot of other instructions, too, so why are we checking now these > QBS instructions? Why not all the others? Why do we need a test to verify > that there is an exception in this case - was there a bug somewhere that > didn't cause an exception in certain circumstances? Looking at the patch that introduced the QEMU handlers (1eecf41b) I wonder why those two cases were added. From my point of view it makes sense to remove the special handling for those two instructions. @Christian: Any idea why this was added? Can we remove it? The only reason I can think of to test this is the existence of EC* bits that control the behavior for those instructions. So if we set those without having QEMU handling code then we're in trouble. But then I'd also expect that we need to set a stfle bit to indicate the availability and this test doesn't check for that and would indicate a false-positive.