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: <4b780f74-ceb3-58d0-572f-7920852711d1@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 14:28:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate
 suppression
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, 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: <20220512131019.2594948-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220512131019.2594948-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Am 12.05.22 um 15:10 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> If a memop fails due to key checked protection, after already having
> written to the guest, don't indicate suppression to the guest, as that
> would imply that memory wasn't modified.
> 
> This could be considered a fix to the code introducing storage key
> support, however this is a bug in KVM only if we emulate an
> instructions writing to an operand spanning multiple pages, which I
> don't believe we do.
> 
> v2 -> v3
>   * tweak commit message
>   * explicitly reset the protection code to 0 on termination
>   * use variable to pass termination arg
>   * add documentation
>   * fix magic constant in selftest
> 
> Given the changes I did not pick up the r-b's.

Claudio, you had reviewed the first one. Is this still valid?