On 11/21/19 3:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:43:27 -0500 > Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Secure guests no longer intercept with code 4 for an instruction >> interception. Instead they have codes 104 and 108 for secure >> instruction interception and secure instruction notification >> respectively. >> >> The 104 mirrors the 4, but the 108 is a notification, that something >> happened and the hypervisor might need to adjust its tracking data to >> that fact. An example for that is the set prefix notification >> interception, where KVM only reads the new prefix, but does not update >> the prefix in the state description. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <[email protected]> >> --- >> target/s390x/kvm.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c >> index 418154ccfe..58251c0229 100644 >> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c >> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c >> @@ -115,6 +115,8 @@ >> #define ICPT_CPU_STOP 0x28 >> #define ICPT_OPEREXC 0x2c >> #define ICPT_IO 0x40 >> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR 0x68 >> +#define ICPT_PV_INSTR_NOT 0x6c > > _NOTIF ?
Yeah, forgot about that
>
>>
>> #define NR_LOCAL_IRQS 32
>> /*
>> @@ -151,6 +153,7 @@ static int cap_s390_irq;
>> static int cap_ri;
>> static int cap_gs;
>> static int cap_hpage_1m;
>> +static int cap_protvirt;
>>
>> static int active_cmma;
>>
>> @@ -336,6 +339,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
>> cap_async_pf = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ASYNC_PF);
>> cap_mem_op = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
>> cap_s390_irq = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_INJECT_IRQ);
>> + cap_protvirt = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED);
>
> You don't seem to do anything with this yet?
No, I'm still a bit in the dark about how we want to tie protvirt into qemu.
>
>>
>> if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_GMAP)
>> || !kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_S390_COW)) {
>> @@ -1664,6 +1668,8 @@ static int handle_intercept(S390CPU *cpu)
>> (long)cs->kvm_run->psw_addr);
>> switch (icpt_code) {
>> case ICPT_INSTRUCTION:
>> + case ICPT_PV_INSTR:
>> + case ICPT_PV_INSTR_NOT:
>> r = handle_instruction(cpu, run);
>
> Doesn't handle_instruction() want to know whether it got a request for
> emulation vs a notification?
Currently not, the sclp patch looks at the vcpu run icptcode to figure
out what's going on.
>
>> break;
>> case ICPT_PROGRAM:
>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
