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=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,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 A634CC35641 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 711D4222C4 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="I8QdtPtX" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 711D4222C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:54582 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j54x6-0001Na-LH for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:50:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j54vv-0008P7-CA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:49:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j54vu-0001Q3-6e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:49:19 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:37173 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j54vu-0001Od-1l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:49:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1582278557; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=izhuloIbjeBJt15cistugJTnZiA/YtlXu6SOpYMF2FU=; b=I8QdtPtXJUawA1ecb+mGAddmPgFw0+enZZTAKNgcU2oLYn4vQ4B1h0e2jU0woLIfbTAnzd R4rv+5MIcyWd1wr86Q2hwN3JuwBvSnEFY0SnBLMpiWejad/DeAsn9xThmH2i98t2BPiF3m 89a2+yvbg8SDOuJ9dAOGm6j73snO0Xo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-214-jrPwCEx6PEmYzhbI8nV8sQ-1; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:49:15 -0500 X-MC-Unique: jrPwCEx6PEmYzhbI8nV8sQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66BAF92AA0; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-195.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.195]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A17C60BE0; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:49:08 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Janosch Frank Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] s390x: protvirt: Add diag308 subcodes 8 - 10 Message-ID: <20200221104908.7c54fd64.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20200220125638.7241-3-frankja@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200220125638.7241-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20200220125638.7241-3-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.61 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, david@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:56:24 -0500 Janosch Frank wrote: > For diag308 subcodes 8 - 10 we have a new ipib of type 5. The ipib > holds the address and length of the secure execution header, as well > as a list of guest components. > > Each component is a block of memory, for example kernel or initrd, > which needs to be decrypted by the Ultravisor in order to run a > protected VM. The secure execution header instructs the Ultravisor on > how to handle the protected VM and its components. > > Subcodes 8 and 9 are similiar to 5 and 6 and subcode 10 will finally > start the protected guest. > > Subcodes 8-10 are not valid in protected mode, we have to do a subcode > 3 and then the 8 and 10 combination for a protected reboot. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > --- > hw/s390x/ipl.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > hw/s390x/ipl.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > target/s390x/diag.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.c b/hw/s390x/ipl.c > index 7773499d7f..e92d989813 100644 > --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.c > +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.c > @@ -538,15 +538,56 @@ static bool is_virtio_scsi_device(IplParameterBlock *iplb) > return is_virtio_ccw_device_of_type(iplb, VIRTIO_ID_SCSI); > } > > +int s390_ipl_pv_check_components(IplParameterBlock *iplb) > +{ > + int i; > + IPLBlockPV *ipib_pv = &iplb->pv; > + > + if (ipib_pv->num_comp == 0) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + for (i = 0; i < ipib_pv->num_comp; i++) { > + > + /* Addr must be 4k aligned */ > + if (ipib_pv->components[i].addr & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + /* Tweak prefix is monotonously increasing with each component */ > + if (i < ipib_pv->num_comp - 1 && > + ipib_pv->components[i].tweak_pref > > + ipib_pv->components[i + 1].tweak_pref) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } > + return 1; Any reason why you return 1 here? 0 vs negative error is the more usual pattern. > +} > + (...) > @@ -117,7 +123,8 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra) > > cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len)); > > - if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb)) { > + if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb) && > + !(iplb_valid_pv(iplb) && s390_ipl_pv_check_components(iplb) >= 0)) { !s390_ipl_pv_check_components() would also read nicer IMHO :) > env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVALID; > goto out; > } Otherwise, looks good to me.