Re: [PATCH v10 09/16] s390x: protvirt: SCLP interpretation

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:46:46 +0100
Janosch Frank <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 3/19/20 1:09 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:30:40 -0400
> > Janosch Frank <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> >> SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to use
> >> the s390_cpu_pv_mem_* functions to access the SIDAD instead of guest
> >> memory when reading/writing SCBs.
> >>
> >> To not confuse the sclp emulation, we set 0x4000 as the SCCB address,
> >> since the function that injects the sclp external interrupt would
> >> reject a zero sccb address.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <address@hidden>
> >> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> >> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>  hw/s390x/sclp.c         | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >>  include/hw/s390x/sclp.h |  2 ++
> >>  target/s390x/kvm.c      | 25 ++++++++++++----
> >>  3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> >> index af0bfbc2eca74767..6486890fecea4b3c 100644
> >> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> >> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> >> @@ -33,6 +33,22 @@ static inline SCLPDevice *get_sclp_device(void)
> >>      return sclp;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static inline bool sclp_command_code_valid(uint32_t code)
> >> +{
> >> +    switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
> >> +    case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMDW_READ_CPU_INFO:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMDW_CONFIGURE_IOA:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMDW_DECONFIGURE_IOA:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMD_READ_EVENT_DATA:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA:
> >> +    case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
> >> +        return true;
> >> +    }
> >> +    return false;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static void prepare_cpu_entries(SCLPDevice *sclp, CPUEntry *entry, int 
> >> *count)
> >>  {
> >>      MachineState *ms = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
> >> @@ -193,6 +209,43 @@ static void sclp_execute(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB 
> >> *sccb, uint32_t code)
> >>      }
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +/*
> >> + * We only need the address to have something valid for the
> >> + * service_interrupt call.
> >> + */
> >> +#define SCLP_PV_DUMMY_ADDR 0x4000
> >> +int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> >> +                                uint32_t code)
> >> +{
> >> +    SCLPDevice *sclp = get_sclp_device();
> >> +    SCLPDeviceClass *sclp_c = SCLP_GET_CLASS(sclp);
> >> +    SCCB work_sccb;
> >> +    hwaddr sccb_len = sizeof(SCCB);
> >> +
> >> +    /*
> >> +     * Only a very limited number of calls is permitted by the
> >> +     * Ultravisor and we support all of them, so we don't check for  
> > 
> > This is no longer true, no?  
> 
> Right, I just removed the comment.

With that,
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>

pgpjF5XUA4tUp.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature