[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f54b2c71-dfd9-1f47-d75d-f58bbc6c6764@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:01:00 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: s390: Don't indicate suppression on dirtying,
failing memop
Am 25.04.22 um 12:01 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, as a result, the likely
> correct ending is termination. Therefore do not indicate a
> suppressing instruction ending in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists