Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:40:58 +0200
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 24/06/2020 14.36, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > 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?  
> 
> ... otherwise Coverity and friends will complain later.

Nod.

> 
> >>       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.  
> 
> I think this should be qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR, ...) instead?

Yes, that sounds better.