Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: ap: kvm: add PQAP interception for AQIC

[Tony Krowiak]

On 2/28/19 6:03 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 28.02.2019 10:42, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> [...]
> > > Okay, let's go back to the genesis of this discussion; namely, my
> > > suggestion about moving the fc == 0x03 check into the hook code. If
> > > the vfio_ap module is not loaded, there will be no hook code. In that
> > > case, the check for the hook will fail and ultimately response code
> > > 0x01 will be set in the status word (which may not be the right thing
> > > to do?). You have not stated a single good reason for keeping this
> > > check, but I'm done with this silly argument. It certainly doesn't
> > > hurt anything.
> >
> > The instruction handler must handle the basic checks for the
> > instruction itself as outlined above.
> >
> > Do we want to allow QEMU to fully emulate everything (the  ECA_APIE case being off)?
> > The we should pass along everything to QEMU, but this is already done with the
> > ECA_APIE check, correct?
> >
> > Do we agree that when we are beyond the ECA_APIE check, that we do not emulate
> > in QEMU and we have enabled the AP instructions interpretion?
> > If yes then this has some implication:
> >
> > 1. ECA is on and we should only get PQAP interception for specific FC (namely 3).
> > 2. What we certainly should check is the facility bit of the guest (65) and reject fc==3
> > right away with a specification exception. I do not want the hook to mess with
> > the kvm cpu model. @Pierre would be good to actually check test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 65))
> > 3. What shall we do when fc == 0x3? We can certainly do the check here OR in the
> > hook. As long as we have only fc==3 this does not matter.
> >
> > Correct?
>
> Thinking more about that, I think we should inject a specification exception for all
> unknown FCc != 0x3. That would also qualify for keeping it in the instruction handler.

Sure, let's do it.

>