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: <5394773f1d872f086625439cc515c50d2374a161.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping into
 interrupt handlers
From:   Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:42:29 +0200
In-Reply-To: <af7be3a9-816c-95dc-22a7-cf62fe245e24@redhat.com>
References: <20230721120046.2262291-1-iii@linux.ibm.com>
         <20230721120046.2262291-2-iii@linux.ibm.com>
         <af7be3a9-816c-95dc-22a7-cf62fe245e24@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 10:22 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 21.07.23 13:57, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > After single-stepping an instruction that generates an interrupt,
> > GDB
> > ends up on the second instruction of the respective interrupt
> > handler.
> >=20
> > The reason is that vcpu_pre_run() manually delivers the interrupt,
> > and
> > then __vcpu_run() runs the first handler instruction using the
> > CPUSTAT_P flag. This causes a KVM_SINGLESTEP exit on the second
> > handler
> > instruction.
> >=20
> > Fix by delaying the KVM_SINGLESTEP exit until after the manual
> > interrupt delivery.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > =C2=A0 arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > =C2=A0 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 4 ++--
> > =C2=A0 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[...]
>=20

> Can we add a comment like
>=20
> /*
> =C2=A0 * We delivered at least one interrupt and modified the PC. Force a
> =C2=A0 * singlestep event now.
> =C2=A0 */

Ok, will do.

> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0if (delivered && guestdbg_ss=
tep_enabled(vcpu)) {
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0struct kvm_debug_exit_arch *debug_exit =3D &vcpu-
> > >run->debug.arch;
> > +
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0debug_exit->addr =3D vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.addr;
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0debug_exit->type =3D KVM_SINGLESTEP;
> > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0vcpu->guest_debug |=3D KVM_GUESTDBG_EXIT_PENDING;
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0}
>=20
> I do wonder if we, instead, want to do this whenever we modify the
> PSW.
>=20
> That way we could catch any PC changes and only have to add checks
> for=20
> guestdbg_exit_pending().

Wouldn't this break a corner case where the first instruction of the
interrupt handler causes the same interrupt?

> But this is simpler and should work as well.
>=20
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>