Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/8] vfio-ccw: Return IOINST_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL for EIO

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:59:11 +0100
Halil Pasic <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:02:20 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:23:40 +0100
> > Halil Pasic <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:13:34 +0100
> > > Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > > EIO is returned by vfio-ccw mediated device when the backing
> > > > > host subchannel is not operational anymore. So return cc=3
> > > > > back to the guest, rather than returning a unit check.
> > > > > This way the guest can take appropriate action such as
> > > > > issue an 'stsch'.      
> > > > 
> > > > Hnm, I'm trying to recall whether that was actually a conscious choice,
> > > > but I can't quite remember... the change does make sense at a glance,
> > > > however.    
> > > 
> > > Is EIO returned if and only if the host subchannel/device is not
> > > operational any more, or are there cases as well?   
> > 
> > Ok, I walked through the kernel code, and it seems -EIO can happen  
> 
> Thanks Connie for having a look.
> 
> > - when we try to do I/O while in the NOT_OPER or STANDBY states... cc 3
> >   makes sense in those cases  
> 
> I do understand NOT_OPER, but I'm not sure about STANDBY.
> 
> Here is what the PoP says about cc 3 for SSCH.
> """
> Condition code 3 is set, and no other action is
> taken, when the subchannel is not operational for
> START SUBCHANNEL. A subchannel is not opera-
> tional for START SUBCHANNEL if the subchannel is
> not provided in the channel subsystem, has no valid
> device number associated with it, or is not enabled.
> """
> 
> Are we guaranteed to reflect one of these conditions back?
> 
> Under what circumstances do we expect that our request will
> find the device in STANDBY?

IIRC, the subchannel is not enabled when the device is in STANDBY?

Anyway, it seems the check here is more like a safety measure, in case
we messed up.

> 
> > - when the cp is not initialized when trying to fetch the orb... which
> >   is an internal vfio-ccw kernel module error  
> 
> 
> So the answer seems to be, no EIO is also used for something else than
> 'device not operational' in a sense of the s390 IO architecture (cc=3
> and stuff).
> 
> AFAIR the idea was that EIO means something is broken, and we decided
> to reflect that as an unit check (because the broader device -- the
> actual device + our pass-through code == device for the guest) is broken.
> So I think it was a conscious choice.

Hm, if you put it like that... maybe leaving it as -EIO makes more sense.

The main question is: What happens if userspace triggers I/O to be
started and we find the device to have become not operational? Can we
even switch the state to NOT_OPER before we try the ssch (which will
fail with cc 3)? If not, it's probably safe to leave the -EIO in place.