[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b780f74-ceb3-58d0-572f-7920852711d1@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 14:28:25 +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>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 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 v3 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate
suppression
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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists