Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH-for-4.2 v2 6/6] s390x/mmu: Factor out storage key handling

[Thomas Huth]

On 8/14/19 9:23 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Factor it out, add a comment how it all works, and also use it in the
> REAL MMU.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> ---
>  target/s390x/mmu_helper.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/s390x/mmu_helper.c b/target/s390x/mmu_helper.c
> index 6cc81a29b6..e125837d68 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/mmu_helper.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/mmu_helper.c
> @@ -334,6 +334,73 @@ static int mmu_translate_asce(CPUS390XState *env, 
> target_ulong vaddr,
>      return r;
>  }
>  
> +static void mmu_handle_skey(target_ulong addr, int rw, int *flags)
> +{
> +    static S390SKeysClass *skeyclass;
> +    static S390SKeysState *ss;
> +    uint8_t key;
> +    int rc;
> +
> +    if (unlikely(!ss)) {
> +        ss = s390_get_skeys_device();
> +        skeyclass = S390_SKEYS_GET_CLASS(ss);
> +    }
> +
> +    /*
> +     * Whenever we create a new TLB entry, we set the storage key reference
> +     * bit. In case we allow write accesses, we set the storage key change
> +     * bit. Whenever the guest changes the storage key, we have to flush the
> +     * TLBs of all CPUs (the whole TLB or all affected entries), so that the
> +     * next reference/change will result in an MMU fault and make us properly
> +     * update the storage key here.
> +     *
> +     * Note 1: "record of references ... is not necessarily accurate",
> +     *         "change bit may be set in case no storing has occurred".
> +     *         -> We can set reference/change bits even on exceptions.
> +     * Note 2: certain accesses seem to ignore storage keys. For example,
> +     *         DAT translation does not set reference bits for table 
> accesses.
> +     *
> +     * TODO: key-controlled protection. Only CPU accesses make use of the
> +     *       PSW key. CSS accesses are different - we have to pass in the 
> key.
> +     *
> +     * TODO: we have races between getting and setting the key.
> +     */
> +    if (addr < ram_size) {

If you want to get rid of some indentation, you could do an early return
if (addr >= ram_size) here instead.

Anyway, good idea to refactor this code, so also in its current shape:

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>