Re: [PATCH v6 02/18] s390x: protvirt: Add diag308 subcodes 8 - 10

[Janosch Frank]

On 3/5/20 1:04 PM, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 3/4/20 6:04 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.03.20 12:42, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> For diag308 subcodes 8 - 10 we have a new ipib of type 5. The ipib
>>> holds the address and length of the secure execution header, as well
>>> as a list of guest components.
>>>
>>> Each component is a block of memory, for example kernel or initrd,
>>> which needs to be decrypted by the Ultravisor in order to run a
>>> protected VM. The secure execution header instructs the Ultravisor on
>>> how to handle the protected VM and its components.
>>>
>>> Subcodes 8 and 9 are similiar to 5 and 6 and subcode 10 will finally
>>> start the protected guest.
>>>
>>> Subcodes 8-10 are not valid in protected mode, we have to do a subcode
>>> 3 and then the 8 and 10 combination for a protected reboot.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/s390x/ipl.c      | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>  hw/s390x/ipl.h      | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  target/s390x/diag.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>  3 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.c b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> index 9c1ecd423c..80c6ab233a 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> @@ -538,15 +538,55 @@ static bool is_virtio_scsi_device(IplParameterBlock 
>>> *iplb)
>>>      return is_virtio_ccw_device_of_type(iplb, VIRTIO_ID_SCSI);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +int s390_ipl_pv_check_components(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
>>
>> What about making this
>>
>> bool s390_ipl_pv_valid(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
>>
>> and return true/false?
> 
> We already have iplb_valid_pv() and ipl->iplb_valid_pv.
> Do you have any other more expressive name we could use?

I think it makes more sense to rip out these tiny functions and
consolidate them like this:

+static inline bool iplb_valid(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
 {
-    return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN &&
-           iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP;
+    switch (iplb->pbt) {
+        case S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP:
+            return (be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN &&
+                    iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP);
+        case S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW:
+            return (be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_CCW_LEN &&
+                    iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW);
+        case S390_IPL_TYPE_PV:
+            if(be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) < S390_IPLB_MIN_PV_LEN ||
+               iplb->pbt != S390_IPL_TYPE_PV) {
+                return false;
+            }
+            return s390_ipl_pv_check_components(iplb);
+    default:
+        return false;
+    }
 }

The component check is still a separate function right above this one in
ipl.h

> 
>>
>>> +{
>>> +    int i;
>>> +    IPLBlockPV *ipib_pv = &iplb->pv;
>>
>> nit: place "int i;" down here
> 
> Ack
> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +    if (ipib_pv->num_comp == 0) {
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < ipib_pv->num_comp; i++) {
>>> +        /* Addr must be 4k aligned */
>>> +        if (ipib_pv->components[i].addr & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) {
>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        /* Tweak prefix is monotonously increasing with each component */
>>
>> should that be "monotonically increasing" ?
> 
> Ooooooh, yeah...
> 
>>
>>> +        if (i < ipib_pv->num_comp - 1 &&
>>> +            ipib_pv->components[i].tweak_pref >
>>> +            ipib_pv->components[i + 1].tweak_pref) {
>>
>> and I assume "==" is valid then.
> 
> Nope, it should be >= in this check
> 
>>
>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  void s390_ipl_update_diag308(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
>>>  {
>>>      S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>>>  
>>> -    ipl->iplb = *iplb;
>>> -    ipl->iplb_valid = true;
>>> +    if (iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_PV) {
>>> +        ipl->iplb_pv = *iplb;
>>> +        ipl->iplb_valid_pv = true;
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        ipl->iplb = *iplb;
>>> +        ipl->iplb_valid = true;
>>> +    }
>>>      ipl->netboot = is_virtio_net_device(iplb);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +IplParameterBlock *s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure(void)
>>
>> Why suddenly the "secure" ? s390_ipl_get_iplb_pv?
> 
> Remnants of former times
> 
>>
>>> +{
>>> +    S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>>> +
>>> +    if (!ipl->iplb_valid_pv) {
>>> +        return NULL;
>>> +    }
>>> +    return &ipl->iplb_pv;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  IplParameterBlock *s390_ipl_get_iplb(void)
>>>  {
>>>      S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>>> @@ -561,7 +601,8 @@ void s390_ipl_reset_request(CPUState *cs, enum 
>>> s390_reset reset_type)
>>>  {
>>>      S390IPLState *ipl = get_ipl_device();
>>>  
>>> -    if (reset_type == S390_RESET_EXTERNAL || reset_type == 
>>> S390_RESET_REIPL) {
>>> +    if (reset_type == S390_RESET_EXTERNAL || reset_type == 
>>> S390_RESET_REIPL ||
>>> +        reset_type == S390_RESET_PV) {
>>
>> What about a switch-case now instead?
>>
>>>          /* use CPU 0 for full resets */
>>>          ipl->reset_cpu_index = 0;
>>>      } else {
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
>>> index d4813105db..04be63cee1 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,24 @@
>>>  #include "cpu.h"
>>>  #include "hw/qdev-core.h"
>>>  
>>> +struct IPLBlockPVComp {
>>> +    uint64_t tweak_pref;
>>> +    uint64_t addr;
>>> +    uint64_t size;
>>> +} QEMU_PACKED;
>>
>> Do we need the packed here? All members are naturally aligned.
> 
> No, I'll remove them
> 
>>
>>> +typedef struct IPLBlockPVComp IPLBlockPVComp;
>>> +
>>> +struct IPLBlockPV {
>>> +    uint8_t  reserved[87];
>>> +    uint8_t  version;
>>> +    uint32_t reserved70;
>>> +    uint32_t num_comp;
>>> +    uint64_t pv_header_addr;
>>> +    uint64_t pv_header_len;
>>> +    struct IPLBlockPVComp components[];
>>> +} QEMU_PACKED;
>>
>> Dito.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>      uint64_t compat_bios_start_addr;
>>>      bool enforce_bios;
>>>      bool iplb_valid;
>>> +    bool iplb_valid_pv;
>>
>> I'd name this "iplb_pv_valid" to match "iplb_pv".
> 
> I like matching prefixes :)
> 
>>
>>>      bool netboot;
>>>      /* reset related properties don't have to be migrated or reset */
>>>      enum s390_reset reset_type;
>>> @@ -161,9 +185,11 @@ QEMU_BUILD_BUG_MSG(offsetof(S390IPLState, iplb) & 3, 
>>> "alignment of iplb wrong");
>>>  
>>>  #define S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP 0x00
>>>  #define S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW 0x02
>>> +#define S390_IPL_TYPE_PV 0x05
>>>  #define S390_IPL_TYPE_QEMU_SCSI 0xff
>>>  
>>>  #define S390_IPLB_HEADER_LEN 8
>>> +#define S390_IPLB_MIN_PV_LEN 148
>>>  #define S390_IPLB_MIN_CCW_LEN 200
>>>  #define S390_IPLB_MIN_FCP_LEN 384
>>>  #define S390_IPLB_MIN_QEMU_SCSI_LEN 200
>>> @@ -185,4 +211,10 @@ static inline bool iplb_valid_fcp(IplParameterBlock 
>>> *iplb)
>>>             iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_FCP;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static inline bool iplb_valid_pv(IplParameterBlock *iplb)
>>> +{
>>> +    return be32_to_cpu(iplb->len) >= S390_IPLB_MIN_PV_LEN &&
>>> +           iplb->pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_PV;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  #endif
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/diag.c b/target/s390x/diag.c
>>> index b5aec06d6b..945b263f0a 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/diag.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/diag.c
>>> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ int handle_diag_288(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
>>> uint64_t r3)
>>>  #define DIAG_308_RC_OK              0x0001
>>>  #define DIAG_308_RC_NO_CONF         0x0102
>>>  #define DIAG_308_RC_INVALID         0x0402
>>> +#define DIAG_308_RC_NO_PV_CONF      0x0902
>>>  
>>>  #define DIAG308_RESET_MOD_CLR       0
>>>  #define DIAG308_RESET_LOAD_NORM     1
>>> @@ -59,6 +60,9 @@ int handle_diag_288(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
>>> uint64_t r3)
>>>  #define DIAG308_LOAD_NORMAL_DUMP    4
>>>  #define DIAG308_SET                 5
>>>  #define DIAG308_STORE               6
>>> +#define DIAG308_PV_SET              8
>>> +#define DIAG308_PV_STORE            9
>>> +#define DIAG308_PV_START            10
>>>  
>>>  static int diag308_parm_check(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, uint64_t 
>>> addr,
>>>                                uintptr_t ra, bool write)
>>> @@ -105,6 +109,7 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
>>> uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra)
>>>          s390_ipl_reset_request(cs, S390_RESET_REIPL);
>>>          break;
>>>      case DIAG308_SET:
>>> +    case DIAG308_PV_SET:
>>>          if (diag308_parm_check(env, r1, addr, ra, false)) {
>>>              return;
>>>          }
>>> @@ -117,7 +122,8 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
>>> uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra)
>>>  
>>>          cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
>>>  
>>> -        if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb)) {
>>> +        if (!iplb_valid_ccw(iplb) && !iplb_valid_fcp(iplb) &&
>>> +            !(iplb_valid_pv(iplb) && !s390_ipl_pv_check_components(iplb))) 
>>> {
>>
>> I really think we should make this s390_ipl_pv_valid(), we're mixing
>> functions that return true on success with functions that return 0 on
>> success. Also, can't we simply move that check into iplb_valid_pv(iplb)
>> to make this here easier to read?
> 
> Yes, let me figure something out
> 
>>
>>>              env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVALID;
>>>              goto out;
>>>          }
>>> @@ -128,17 +134,31 @@ out:
>>>          g_free(iplb);
>>>          return;
>>>      case DIAG308_STORE:
>>> +    case DIAG308_PV_STORE:
>>>          if (diag308_parm_check(env, r1, addr, ra, true)) {
>>>              return;
>>>          }
>>> -        iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
>>> +        if (subcode == DIAG308_PV_STORE) {
>>> +            iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure();
>>> +        } else {
>>> +            iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
>>> +        }
>>>          if (iplb) {
>>>              cpu_physical_memory_write(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
>>>              env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_OK;
>>>          } else {
>>>              env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_NO_CONF;
>>>          }
>>> -        return;
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case DIAG308_PV_START:
>>> +        iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb_secure();
>>> +        if (!iplb || !iplb_valid_pv(iplb)) {
>>
>> Why do we need another iplb_valid_pv() check? I thought we would verify
>> this when setting and marking valid.
> 
> Good question, I'll look into it and give this patch a dust off
> 
>>
>>> +            env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_NO_PV_CONF;
>>> +            return;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>
>>
> 
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature