[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm g
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:36:35 +0200 |
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:22:56 -0400
Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> As more features and facilities are added to the Read SCP Info (RSCPI)
> response, more space is required to store them. The space used to store
> these new features intrudes on the space originally used to store CPU
> entries. This means as more features and facilities are added to the
> RSCPI response, less space can be used to store CPU entries.
>
> With the Extended-Length SCCB (ELS) facility, a KVM guest can execute
> the RSCPI command and determine if the SCCB is large enough to store a
> complete reponse. If it is not large enough, then the required length
> will be set in the SCCB header.
>
> The caller of the SCLP command is responsible for creating a
> large-enough SCCB to store a complete response. Proper checking should
> be in place, and the caller should execute the command once-more with
> the large-enough SCCB.
>
> This facility also enables an extended SCCB for the Read CPU Info
> (RCPUI) command.
>
> When this facility is enabled, the boundary violation response cannot
> be a result from the RSCPI, RSCPI Forced, or RCPUI commands.
>
> In order to tolerate kernels that do not yet have full support for this
> feature, a "fixed" offset to the start of the CPU Entries within the
> Read SCP Info struct is set to allow for the original 248 max entries
> when this feature is disabled.
>
> Additionally, this is introduced as a CPU feature to protect the guest
> from migrating to a machine that does not support storing an extended
> SCCB. This could otherwise hinder the VM from being able to read all
> available CPU entries after migration (such as during re-ipl).
>
> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 1 +
> target/s390x/cpu_features_def.inc.h | 1 +
> target/s390x/gen-features.c | 1 +
> target/s390x/kvm.c | 8 ++++++++
> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 0dfbe6e5ec..f7c49e339e 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,18 @@ static bool sccb_has_valid_boundary(uint64_t sccb_addr,
> uint32_t code,
> uint64_t sccb_boundary = (sccb_addr & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE;
>
> 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:
> + /*
> + * An extended-length SCCB is only allowed for Read SCP/CPU Info and
> + * is allowed to exceed the 4k boundary. The respective commands will
> + * set the length field to the required length if an insufficient
> + * SCCB length is provided.
> + */
> + if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_EXTENDED_LENGTH_SCCB)) {
> + return true;
> + }
Add a fallthrough annotation?
> default:
> if (sccb_max_addr < sccb_boundary) {
> return true;
> @@ -72,6 +84,10 @@ static bool sccb_sufficient_len(SCCB *sccb, int num_cpus,
> int data_len)
>
> if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) < required_len) {
> sccb->h.response_code =
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> + if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_EXTENDED_LENGTH_SCCB) &&
> + sccb->h.control_mask[2] & SCLP_VARIABLE_LENGTH_RESPONSE) {
> + sccb->h.length = required_len;
> + }
> return false;
> }
> return true;
> @@ -101,7 +117,9 @@ static void prepare_cpu_entries(MachineState *ms,
> CPUEntry *entry, int *count)
> */
> static inline int get_read_scp_info_data_len(void)
> {
> - return offsetof(ReadInfo, entries);
> + return s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_EXTENDED_LENGTH_SCCB) ?
> + offsetof(ReadInfo, entries) :
> + SCLP_READ_SCP_INFO_FIXED_CPU_OFFSET;
> }
>
> /* Provide information about the configuration, CPUs and storage */
> @@ -116,6 +134,7 @@ static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
> CPUEntry *entries_start = (void *)sccb + data_len;
>
> if (!sccb_sufficient_len(sccb, machine->possible_cpus->len, data_len)) {
> + warn_report("insufficient sccb size to store read scp info
> response");
Hm, this warning is triggered by a guest action, isn't it? Not sure how
helpful it is.
> return;
> }
>
(...)
Otherwise, looks good to me.
- Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary and length checks, (continued)
- [PATCH v3 8/8] s390: guest support for diagnose 0x318, Collin Walling, 2020/06/18
- [PATCH v3 7/8] s390/kvm: header sync for diag318, Collin Walling, 2020/06/18
- [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Collin Walling, 2020/06/18
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest,
Cornelia Huck <=
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Thomas Huth, 2020/06/24
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Cornelia Huck, 2020/06/24
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Collin Walling, 2020/06/24
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Cornelia Huck, 2020/06/24
- Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest, Thomas Huth, 2020/06/24
Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] s390: Extended-Length SCCB & DIAGNOSE 0x318, no-reply, 2020/06/18
Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] s390: Extended-Length SCCB & DIAGNOSE 0x318, no-reply, 2020/06/18