Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/7] s390x/pci: rework PCI STORE BLOCK

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:38:40 +0100
Pierre Morel <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 13/11/2017 16:23, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue,  7 Nov 2017 18:24:36 +0100
> > Pierre Morel <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> >> Enhance the fault detection.
> >>
> >> Add the maxstbl entry to both the Query PCI Function Group
> >> response and the PCIBusDevice structure.
> >>
> >> Initialize the maxstbl to 128 per default until we get
> >> the actual data from the hardware.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <address@hidden>
> >> Reviewed-by: Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h  |  1 +
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 62 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >>   hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.h |  2 +-
> >>   3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>  
> >   
> >> @@ -662,22 +664,10 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, 
> >> uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>       fh = env->regs[r1] >> 32;
> >>       pcias = (env->regs[r1] >> 16) & 0xf;
> >>       len = env->regs[r1] & 0xff;
> >> +    offset = env->regs[r3];
> >>   
> >> -    if (pcias > 5) {
> >> -        DPRINTF("pcistb invalid space\n");
> >> -        setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_ERR);
> >> -        s390_set_status_code(env, r1, ZPCI_PCI_ST_INVAL_AS);
> >> -        return 0;
> >> -    }
> >> -
> >> -    switch (len) {
> >> -    case 16:
> >> -    case 32:
> >> -    case 64:
> >> -    case 128:
> >> -        break;
> >> -    default:
> >> -        program_interrupt(env, PGM_SPECIFICATION, 6);
> >> +    if (!(fh & FH_MASK_ENABLE)) {
> >> +        setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_INVAL_HANDLE);  
> > 
> > So this means you move checking for the device before checking for the
> > parameters or the as.  
> 
> Yes, this is clearly following the specifications that CC=3 has priority 
> over CC=1 or CC=2.

OK, it would then make sense to mention in the patch description that
you fixed up the precedence as well.

> 
> By the way I find that defining ZPCI_PCI_LS_INVAL_HANDLE is obfuscating, 
> we have the information from the test we just made but we loose the 
> information about if it is a 1, 2 or 3 CC value.
> May be in another patch?

Let's keep this for now, we can revisit that later.

> 
> >   
> >>           return 0;
> >>       }
> >>   
> >> @@ -689,12 +679,7 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, 
> >> uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>       }
> >>   
> >>       switch (pbdev->state) {
> >> -    case ZPCI_FS_RESERVED:
> >> -    case ZPCI_FS_STANDBY:
> >> -    case ZPCI_FS_DISABLED:
> >>       case ZPCI_FS_PERMANENT_ERROR:
> >> -        setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_INVAL_HANDLE);
> >> -        return 0;
> >>       case ZPCI_FS_ERROR:
> >>           setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_ERR);
> >>           s390_set_status_code(env, r1, ZPCI_PCI_ST_BLOCKED);
> >> @@ -703,8 +688,33 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, 
> >> uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>           break;
> >>       }
> >>   
> >> +    if (pcias > 5) {
> >> +        DPRINTF("pcistb invalid space\n");
> >> +        setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_ERR);
> >> +        s390_set_status_code(env, r1, ZPCI_PCI_ST_INVAL_AS);
> >> +        return 0;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    /* Verify the address, offset and length */
> >> +    /* offset must be a multiple of 8 */
> >> +    if (offset % 8) {
> >> +        goto addressing_error;
> >> +    }
> >> +    /* Length must be greater than 8, a multiple of 8, lower than maxstbl 
> >> */
> >> +    if ((len <= 8) || (len % 8) || (len > pbdev->maxstbl)) {
> >> +        goto addressing_error;
> >> +    }
> >> +    /* Do not cross a 4K-byte boundary */
> >> +    if (((offset & 0xfff) + len) > 0x1000) {
> >> +        goto addressing_error;
> >> +    }
> >> +    /* Guest address must be double word aligned */
> >> +    if (gaddr & 0x07UL) {
> >> +        goto addressing_error;
> >> +    }  
> > 
> > So the checks here are only evaluated if the instruction actually pokes
> > at a valid region?  
> 
> hum, I did not find the precedence of execution for PCI STORE BLOCK.
> 
> My logic is that you must find a destination before you start reading 
> the source, so I would say it is the right way to do.
> But the experience as already shown that my logic may not always be 
> compatible with the internals of S390x :)
> 
> However, the documentation specifies that if an error condition is 
> detected that precludes the *initiation* of the store operation a CC=1 
> is set.
> The fact that the *initiation* is focused on enforce the idea I have on 
> the precedence between the low level operations.

OK, this interpretation makes sense. It might be a good idea to poke the
architecture authors if it is ambiguous, though :)

> 
> >   
> >> +
> >>       mr = pbdev->pdev->io_regions[pcias].memory;
> >> -    if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, env->regs[r3], len, true)) {
> >> +    if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset, len, true)) {
> >>           program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, 6);
> >>           return 0;
> >>       }
> >> @@ -714,9 +724,9 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, 
> >> uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>       }
> >>   
> >>       for (i = 0; i < len / 8; i++) {
> >> -        result = memory_region_dispatch_write(mr, env->regs[r3] + i * 8,
> >> -                                     ldq_p(buffer + i * 8), 8,
> >> -                                     MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED);
> >> +        result = memory_region_dispatch_write(mr, offset + i * 8,
> >> +                                              ldq_p(buffer + i * 8), 8,
> >> +                                              MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED);
> >>           if (result != MEMTX_OK) {
> >>               program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, 6);
> >>               return 0;
> >> @@ -725,6 +735,10 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, 
> >> uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>   
> >>       setcc(cpu, ZPCI_PCI_LS_OK);
> >>       return 0;
> >> +
> >> +addressing_error:
> >> +    program_interrupt(env, PGM_SPECIFICATION, 6);
> >> +    return 0;
> >>   }  
> > 
> > This seems more readable; I can't verify whether it is actually correct
> > without access to the architecture, though :(
> >   
> 
> 
>