Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6f385869-3f3b-d985-6804-02943a8dee07@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 19:40:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying,
 failing memop
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220401170247.1287354-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220401170247.1287354-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <e191fbc0-9471-5cde-7698-cdd32d83051f@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <e191fbc0-9471-5cde-7698-cdd32d83051f@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/1/22 19:13, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 01.04.22 um 19:02 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
>> If user space uses a memop to emulate an instruction and that
>> memop fails, the execution of the instruction ends.
>> Instruction execution can end in different ways, one of which is
>> suppression, which requires that the instruction execute like a no-op.
>> A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key
>> protection can modified guest memory. Therefore do not indicate a
>> suppressing instruction ending in this case.

A writing memop that spans multiple pages and fails due to key
protection can modified guest memory, as a result, the likely
correct ending is termination. Therefore do not indicate a
suppressing instruction ending in this case.

?

It's phrased a bit vaguely, because we don't really know what user space wants
when emulating an instruction, I guess it could try to revert the changes?
And the TEID does not indicate termination, it only indicates that
the guest cannot assume that the instruction was suppressed.

> 
> Make it explicit in the changelog that this is "terminating" instead of
> "suppressing". z/VM has the same logic and the architecture allows for
> terminating in those cases (even for ESOP2).
>  >
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---