Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: relax check on H_SVM_INIT_ABORT
To:     Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Cc:     kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, groug@kaod.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        sukadev@linux.ibm.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com
References: <20200520193259.0b66db32@bahia.lan>
 <20200520174308.77820-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200527041649.GD293451@thinks.paulus.ozlabs.org>
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <6bf0ada4-7386-d301-beb0-7e25ac94b0fa@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 11:23:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200527041649.GD293451@thinks.paulus.ozlabs.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Le 27/05/2020 à 06:16, Paul Mackerras a écrit :
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 07:43:08PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> The commit 8c47b6ff29e3 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Check caller of H_SVM_*
>> Hcalls") added checks of secure bit of SRR1 to filter out the Hcall
>> reserved to the Ultravisor.
>>
>> However, the Hcall H_SVM_INIT_ABORT is made by the Ultravisor passing the
>> context of the VM calling UV_ESM. This allows the Hypervisor to return to
>> the guest without going through the Ultravisor. Thus the Secure bit of SRR1
>> is not set in that particular case.
>>
>> In the case a regular VM is calling H_SVM_INIT_ABORT, this hcall will be
>> filtered out in kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort() because kvm->arch.secure_guest is
>> not set in that case.
>>
>> Fixes: 8c47b6ff29e3 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Check caller of H_SVM_* Hcalls")
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Thanks, applied to my kvm-ppc-next branch.  I expanded the comment in
> the code a little.

Thanks, the comment is more explicit now.

Laurent.