Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: s390: Disallow invalid bits in kvm_valid_regs and kvm_dirty_regs

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 04/09/2019 11.15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.09.19 11:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04.09.19 11:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 04.09.19 10:51, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> If unknown bits are set in kvm_valid_regs or kvm_dirty_regs, this
>>>> clearly indicates that something went wrong in the KVM userspace
>>>> application. The x86 variant of KVM already contains a check for
>>>> bad bits, so let's do the same on s390x now, too.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 4 ++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> index 47104e5b47fd..436ec7636927 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -231,6 +231,12 @@ struct kvm_guest_debug_arch {
>>>>  #define KVM_SYNC_GSCB   (1UL << 9)
>>>>  #define KVM_SYNC_BPBC   (1UL << 10)
>>>>  #define KVM_SYNC_ETOKEN (1UL << 11)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define KVM_SYNC_S390_VALID_FIELDS \
>>>> +	(KVM_SYNC_PREFIX | KVM_SYNC_GPRS | KVM_SYNC_ACRS | KVM_SYNC_CRS | \
>>>> +	 KVM_SYNC_ARCH0 | KVM_SYNC_PFAULT | KVM_SYNC_VRS | KVM_SYNC_RICCB | \
>>>> +	 KVM_SYNC_FPRS | KVM_SYNC_GSCB | KVM_SYNC_BPBC | KVM_SYNC_ETOKEN)
>>>> +
>>>
>>> We didn't care about the S390 for the actual flags, why care now?
>>
>> I think it makes sense to have the interface as defined as possible. If for some
>> reason userspace sets a wrong bit this would be undetected. If we at a later point
>> in time use that bit this would resultin strange problems.
> 
> Not arguing about the concept of checking for valid bits. Was just
> wondering if the "S390" part in the name makes sense at all. But you
> guys seem to have a consent here.

Oh, I guess we both got your question wrong... Well, I don't care too
much whether we've got an "S390" in there or not ... so unless there is
a real good reason to remove it, let's simply keep it this way.

 Thomas