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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBC0C43381 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8576120830 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388004AbfCAMD5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 07:03:57 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:54026 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732687AbfCAMD4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 07:03:56 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x21C3p2o092265 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 07:03:55 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qy1h3s2a1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:03:54 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:45 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:43 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x21C3fsY32440366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:41 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EDF11C04A; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E607711C050; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.152.224.140] (unknown [9.152.224.140]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: pmorel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: ap: kvm: add PQAP interception for AQIC From: Pierre Morel To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Tony Krowiak , alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com References: <1550849400-27152-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1550849400-27152-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <9f1d9241-39b9-adbc-d0e9-cb702e609cbc@linux.ibm.com> <4dc59125-7f96-cba8-651b-382ed8f8bff8@linux.ibm.com> <8526f468-9a4d-68d2-3868-0dad5ce16f46@linux.ibm.com> <6058a017-6404-af3c-62ef-2452214ac97c@de.ibm.com> <2391adc2-6611-034c-61c5-feb46e2a751b@de.ibm.com> <20190228122251.75b31f62.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190228145254.2909425e.cohuck@redhat.com> <261a1e22-3703-21a4-e33d-e737651e7d89@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:03:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <261a1e22-3703-21a4-e33d-e737651e7d89@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19030112-4275-0000-0000-000003158B53 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19030112-4276-0000-0000-00003823D579 Message-Id: <3fedbde5-ef83-c67e-6352-fd492f258009@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-01_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=939 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903010085 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28/02/2019 15:14, Pierre Morel wrote: > On 28/02/2019 14:52, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:16:09 +0100 >> Pierre Morel wrote: >> >>> On 28/02/2019 12:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >>>> So, to summarize, the function should do: >>>> - Is userspace supposed to emulate everything (!ECA_APIE)? Return >>>>     -EOPNOTSUPP to hand control to it. >>>> - We are now interpreting the instruction in KVM. Do common checks >>>>     (PSTATE etc.) and inject exceptions, if needed. >>>> - Now look at the fc; if there's a handler for it, call that; if not >>>>     (case does not attempt to call a specific handler, or no handler >>>>     registered), inject a specification exception. (Do we want >>>> pre-checks >>>>     like for facility 65 here, or in the handler?) >>>> >>>> That response code 0x01 thingy probably needs to go into the specific >>>> handler function, if anywhere (don't know the semantics, sorry). >>> >>> What do you mean with specific handler function? >>> >>> If you mean a switch around the FC with static function's call, I agree, >>> if you mean a jump into a hook I do not agree. >> >> Ah, ok; so each case (that we want to handle) should call into a >> subhandler that does >> { >>     (... check things like facilities ...) >>     if (!specific_hook) >>         inject_specif_excp_and_return(); >>     ret = specific_hook(); >>     if (ret) >>         set_resp_code_0x01(); // or in specific_hook()? >> } >> >> ? > > Yes something in this direction. Sorry, after reflection, no, we do not want to change the previous behavior so we only handle the AQIC case. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany