Am 24.05.22 um 12:43 schrieb Thomas Huth:
On 19/05/2022 15.53, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 5/19/22 12:05, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 06/05/2022 17.39, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
Storage key controlled protection is currently not honored when
emulating instructions.
If available, enable key protection for the MEM_OP ioctl, thereby
enabling it for the s390_cpu_virt_mem_* functions, when using kvm.
As a result, the emulation of the following instructions honors storage
keys:
* CLP
The Synch I/O CLP command would need special handling in order
to support storage keys, but is currently not supported.
* CHSC
Performing commands asynchronously would require special
handling, but commands are currently always synchronous.
* STSI
* TSCH
Must (and does) not change channel if terminated due to
protection.
* MSCH
Suppressed on protection, works because fetching instruction.
* SSCH
Suppressed on protection, works because fetching instruction.
* STSCH
* STCRW
Suppressed on protection, this works because no partial store is
possible, because the operand cannot span multiple pages.
* PCISTB
* MPCIFC
* STPCIFC
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <s...@linux.ibm.com>
---
target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
index 53098bf541..7bd8db0e7b 100644
--- a/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
+++ b/target/s390x/kvm/kvm.c
@@ -151,12 +151,15 @@ const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[]
= {
static int cap_sync_regs;
static int cap_async_pf;
static int cap_mem_op;
+static int cap_mem_op_extension;
static int cap_s390_irq;
static int cap_ri;
static int cap_hpage_1m;
static int cap_vcpu_resets;
static int cap_protected;
+static bool mem_op_storage_key_support;
+
static int active_cmma;
static int kvm_s390_query_mem_limit(uint64_t *memory_limit)
@@ -354,6 +357,8 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
cap_sync_regs = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS);
cap_async_pf = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ASYNC_PF);
cap_mem_op = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
+ cap_mem_op_extension = kvm_check_extension(s,
KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
+ mem_op_storage_key_support = cap_mem_op_extension > 0;
Ah, so KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION is a "version number", not a boolean flag?
... ok, now I've finally understood that ... ;-)
Yeah, potentially having a bunch of memop capabilities didn't seem nice to me.
We can remove extensions if, when introducing an extension, we define that
version x supports functionality y, z...,
but for the storage keys I've written in api.rst that it's supported if the cap
> 0.
So we'd need a new cap if we want to get rid of the skey extension and still
support some other extension,
but that doesn't seem particularly likely.
Oh well, never say that ... we've seen it in the past, that sometimes we want
to get rid of features again, and if they don't have a separate feature flag
bit somewhere, it's getting very ugly to disable them again.
So since we don't have merged this patch yet, and thus we don't have a public
userspace program using this interface yet, this is our last chance to redefine
this interface before we might regret it later.
I'm in strong favor of treating the KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION as a flag
field instead of a version number. What do others think? Christian? Halil?
Its too late for that. This is part of 5.18.
