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: <1c767675-3ab6-8e4b-e92e-e408b19e1c49@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:29:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: fix sthyi error handling
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230727182939.2050744-1-hca@linux.ibm.com>
 <7fadab86-2b7c-b934-fcfa-61046c0778b6@linux.ibm.com>
 <20230728091411.6761-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230728091411.6761-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Am 28.07.23 um 11:14 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 09:28:58AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Am 27.07.23 um 20:29 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
>>> Commit 9fb6c9b3fea1 ("s390/sthyi: add cache to store hypervisor info")
>>> added cache handling for store hypervisor info. This also changed the
>>> possible return code for sthyi_fill().
>>>
>>> Instead of only returning a condition code like the sthyi instruction would
>>> do, it can now also return a negative error value (-ENOMEM). handle_styhi()
>>> was not changed accordingly. In case of an error, the negative error value
>>> would incorrectly injected into the guest PSW.
>>>
>>> Add proper error handling to prevent this, and update the comment which
>>> describes the possible return values of sthyi_fill().
>>
>> To me it looks like this can only happen if page allocation fails? This should
>> not happen in normal cases (and return -ENOMEM would likely kill the guest as
>> QEMU would stop).
>> But if it happens we better stop.
> 
> Yes, no reason for any stable backports. But things might change in the
> future, so we better have correct error handling in place.

Feel free to carry via the s390 tree.