[kvm-unit-tests,3/3] s390x: Add storage key removal facility
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190827134936.1705-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • s390x: Add skey removal facility test
Related show

Commit Message

Janosch Frank Aug. 27, 2019, 1:49 p.m. UTC
The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
key.

Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
(pfmf) or not at all (skey).

Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 s390x/Makefile |   1 +
 s390x/pfmf.c   |  10 ++++
 s390x/skey.c   |   5 ++
 s390x/skrf.c   | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c

Comments

Thomas Huth Aug. 27, 2019, 5:58 p.m. UTC | #1
On 27/08/2019 15.49, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
> instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
> key.
> 
> Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
> (pfmf) or not at all (skey).
> 
> Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
> affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  s390x/Makefile |   1 +
>  s390x/pfmf.c   |  10 ++++
>  s390x/skey.c   |   5 ++
>  s390x/skrf.c   | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 s390x/skrf.c
> 
> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
> index 76db0bb..007611e 100644
> --- a/s390x/Makefile
> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/iep.elf
>  tests += $(TEST_DIR)/cpumodel.elf
>  tests += $(TEST_DIR)/diag288.elf
>  tests += $(TEST_DIR)/stsi.elf
> +tests += $(TEST_DIR)/skrf.elf
>  tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
>  
>  all: directories test_cases test_cases_binary
> diff --git a/s390x/pfmf.c b/s390x/pfmf.c
> index 2840cf5..78b4a73 100644
> --- a/s390x/pfmf.c
> +++ b/s390x/pfmf.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ static void test_4k_key(void)
>  	union skey skey;
>  
>  	report_prefix_push("4K");
> +	if (test_facility(169)) {
> +		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
>  	r1.val = 0;
>  	r1.reg.sk = 1;
>  	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
> @@ -42,6 +46,7 @@ static void test_4k_key(void)
>  	skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
>  	skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
>  	report("set storage keys", skey.val == 0x30);
> +out:
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  }
>  
> @@ -54,6 +59,10 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
>  	void *addr = pagebuf;
>  
>  	report_prefix_push("1M");
> +	if (test_facility(169)) {
> +		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
>  	r1.val = 0;
>  	r1.reg.sk = 1;
>  	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_1M;
> @@ -70,6 +79,7 @@ static void test_1m_key(void)
>  		}
>  	}
>  	report("set storage keys", rp);
> +out:
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/s390x/skey.c b/s390x/skey.c
> index efc4eca..5020e99 100644
> --- a/s390x/skey.c
> +++ b/s390x/skey.c
> @@ -126,10 +126,15 @@ static void test_priv(void)
>  int main(void)
>  {
>  	report_prefix_push("skey");
> +	if (test_facility(169)) {
> +		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
> +		goto done;
> +	}
>  	test_priv();
>  	test_set();
>  	test_set_mb();
>  	test_chg();
> +done:
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  	return report_summary();
>  }
> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..8e5baea
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
> +/*
> + * Storage key removal facility tests
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2019 IBM Corp
> + *
> + * Authors:
> + *  Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> + *
> + * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.
> + */
> +#include <libcflat.h>
> +#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> +#include <asm/interrupt.h>
> +#include <asm/page.h>
> +#include <asm/facility.h>
> +#include <asm/mem.h>
> +
> +static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
> +
> +static void test_facilities(void)
> +{
> +	report_prefix_push("facilities");
> +	report("!10", !test_facility(10));
> +	report("!14", !test_facility(14));
> +	report("!66", !test_facility(66));
> +	report("!145", !test_facility(145));
> +	report("!149", !test_facility(140));
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_skey(void)
> +{
> +	report_prefix_push("(i|s)ske");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x30, 0);
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	get_storage_key(pagebuf);
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();

Wouldn't it be better to have distinct prefixes for the two tests?

> +}
> +
> +static void test_pfmf(void)
> +{
> +	union pfmf_r1 r1;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("pfmf");
> +	r1.val = 0;
> +	r1.reg.sk = 1;
> +	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
> +	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_psw_key(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t psw_mask = extract_psw_mask() | 0xF0000000000000UL;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("psw key");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	load_psw_mask(psw_mask);
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_mvcos(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t r3 = 64;
> +	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
> +	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
> +	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
> +	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
> +	expect_pgm_int();
> +	asm volatile(".machine \"z10\"\n"
> +		     ".machine \"push\"\n"

Shouldn't that be the other way round? first push the current one, then
set the new one?

Anyway, I've now also checked this patch in the CI:

diff a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ CFLAGS += -std=gnu99
 CFLAGS += -ffreestanding
 CFLAGS += -I $(SRCDIR)/lib -I $(SRCDIR)/lib/s390x -I lib
 CFLAGS += -O2
-CFLAGS += -march=z900
+CFLAGS += -march=z10
 CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
 LDFLAGS += -nostdlib -Wl,--build-id=none

... and it also seems to work fine with the TCG there:

https://gitlab.com/huth/kvm-unit-tests/-/jobs/281450598

So I think you can simply change it in the Makefile instead.

 Thomas

> +		     "mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]\n"
> +		     ".machine \"pop\"\n"
> +		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
> +		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
> +		     : "cc", "memory");
> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
Janosch Frank Aug. 28, 2019, 6:26 a.m. UTC | #2
On 8/27/19 7:58 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27/08/2019 15.49, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> The storage key removal facility (stfle bit 169) makes all key related
>> instructions result in a special operation exception if they handle a
>> key.
>>
>> Let's make sure that the skey and pfmf tests only run non key code
>> (pfmf) or not at all (skey).
>>
>> Also let's test this new facility. As lots of instructions are
>> affected by this, only some of them are tested for now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---

>> +static void test_skey(void)
>> +{
>> +	report_prefix_push("(i|s)ske");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x30, 0);
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	get_storage_key(pagebuf);
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to have distinct prefixes for the two tests?

Will do

> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_pfmf(void)
>> +{
>> +	union pfmf_r1 r1;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("pfmf");
>> +	r1.val = 0;
>> +	r1.reg.sk = 1;
>> +	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
>> +	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_psw_key(void)
>> +{
>> +	uint64_t psw_mask = extract_psw_mask() | 0xF0000000000000UL;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("psw key");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	load_psw_mask(psw_mask);
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_mvcos(void)
>> +{
>> +	uint64_t r3 = 64;
>> +	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
>> +	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
>> +	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
>> +	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
>> +	expect_pgm_int();
>> +	asm volatile(".machine \"z10\"\n"
>> +		     ".machine \"push\"\n"
> 
> Shouldn't that be the other way round? first push the current one, then
> set the new one?

Yes, I interpreted the documentation in the wrong way and it was a PPC
documentation anyway :)

> 
> Anyway, I've now also checked this patch in the CI:
> 
> diff a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
> --- a/s390x/Makefile
> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ CFLAGS += -std=gnu99
>  CFLAGS += -ffreestanding
>  CFLAGS += -I $(SRCDIR)/lib -I $(SRCDIR)/lib/s390x -I lib
>  CFLAGS += -O2
> -CFLAGS += -march=z900
> +CFLAGS += -march=z10
>  CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
>  LDFLAGS += -nostdlib -Wl,--build-id=none
> 
> ... and it also seems to work fine with the TCG there:
> 
> https://gitlab.com/huth/kvm-unit-tests/-/jobs/281450598
> 
> So I think you can simply change it in the Makefile instead.

z10 or directly something higher?

> 
>  Thomas
> 
>> +		     "mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]\n"
>> +		     ".machine \"pop\"\n"
>> +		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
>> +		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
>> +		     : "cc", "memory");
>> +	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
Thomas Huth Aug. 28, 2019, 7:56 a.m. UTC | #3
On 28/08/2019 08.26, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 8/27/19 7:58 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
>> Anyway, I've now also checked this patch in the CI:
>>
>> diff a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
>> --- a/s390x/Makefile
>> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ CFLAGS += -std=gnu99
>>  CFLAGS += -ffreestanding
>>  CFLAGS += -I $(SRCDIR)/lib -I $(SRCDIR)/lib/s390x -I lib
>>  CFLAGS += -O2
>> -CFLAGS += -march=z900
>> +CFLAGS += -march=z10
>>  CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
>>  LDFLAGS += -nostdlib -Wl,--build-id=none
>>
>> ... and it also seems to work fine with the TCG there:
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/huth/kvm-unit-tests/-/jobs/281450598
>>
>> So I think you can simply change it in the Makefile instead.
> 
> z10 or directly something higher?

zEC12 seems to work, too:

https://gitlab.com/huth/kvm-unit-tests/-/jobs/281833366

 Thomas

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index 76db0bb..007611e 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@  tests += $(TEST_DIR)/iep.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/cpumodel.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/diag288.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/stsi.elf
+tests += $(TEST_DIR)/skrf.elf
 tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
 
 all: directories test_cases test_cases_binary
diff --git a/s390x/pfmf.c b/s390x/pfmf.c
index 2840cf5..78b4a73 100644
--- a/s390x/pfmf.c
+++ b/s390x/pfmf.c
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@  static void test_4k_key(void)
 	union skey skey;
 
 	report_prefix_push("4K");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto out;
+	}
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
 	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
@@ -42,6 +46,7 @@  static void test_4k_key(void)
 	skey.val = get_storage_key(pagebuf);
 	skey.val &= SKEY_ACC | SKEY_FP;
 	report("set storage keys", skey.val == 0x30);
+out:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
 
@@ -54,6 +59,10 @@  static void test_1m_key(void)
 	void *addr = pagebuf;
 
 	report_prefix_push("1M");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto out;
+	}
 	r1.val = 0;
 	r1.reg.sk = 1;
 	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_1M;
@@ -70,6 +79,7 @@  static void test_1m_key(void)
 		}
 	}
 	report("set storage keys", rp);
+out:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 }
 
diff --git a/s390x/skey.c b/s390x/skey.c
index efc4eca..5020e99 100644
--- a/s390x/skey.c
+++ b/s390x/skey.c
@@ -126,10 +126,15 @@  static void test_priv(void)
 int main(void)
 {
 	report_prefix_push("skey");
+	if (test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility is active");
+		goto done;
+	}
 	test_priv();
 	test_set();
 	test_set_mb();
 	test_chg();
+done:
 	report_prefix_pop();
 	return report_summary();
 }
diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8e5baea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/s390x/skrf.c
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ 
+/*
+ * Storage key removal facility tests
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2019 IBM Corp
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
+ *
+ * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.
+ */
+#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <asm/mem.h>
+
+static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
+
+static void test_facilities(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("facilities");
+	report("!10", !test_facility(10));
+	report("!14", !test_facility(14));
+	report("!66", !test_facility(66));
+	report("!145", !test_facility(145));
+	report("!149", !test_facility(140));
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_skey(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("(i|s)ske");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	set_storage_key(pagebuf, 0x30, 0);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	get_storage_key(pagebuf);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_pfmf(void)
+{
+	union pfmf_r1 r1;
+
+	report_prefix_push("pfmf");
+	r1.val = 0;
+	r1.reg.sk = 1;
+	r1.reg.fsc = PFMF_FSC_4K;
+	r1.reg.key = 0x30;
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	pfmf(r1.val, pagebuf);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_psw_key(void)
+{
+	uint64_t psw_mask = extract_psw_mask() | 0xF0000000000000UL;
+
+	report_prefix_push("psw key");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	load_psw_mask(psw_mask);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_mvcos(void)
+{
+	uint64_t r3 = 64;
+	uint8_t *src = pagebuf;
+	uint8_t *dst = pagebuf + PAGE_SIZE;
+	/* K bit set, as well as keys */
+	register unsigned long oac asm("0") = 0xf002f002;
+
+	report_prefix_push("mvcos");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile(".machine \"z10\"\n"
+		     ".machine \"push\"\n"
+		     "mvcos	%[dst],%[src],%[len]\n"
+		     ".machine \"pop\"\n"
+		     : [dst] "+Q" (*(dst))
+		     : [src] "Q" (*(src)), [len] "d" (r3), "d" (oac)
+		     : "cc", "memory");
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_spka(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("spka");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile("spka	0xf0(0)\n"
+		     : : : );
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_tprot(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("tprot");
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	asm volatile("tprot	%[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
+		     : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+int main(void)
+{
+	report_prefix_push("skrf");
+	if (!test_facility(169)) {
+		report_skip("storage key removal facility not available\n");
+		goto done;
+	}
+
+	test_facilities();
+	test_skey();
+	test_pfmf();
+	test_psw_key();
+	test_mvcos();
+	test_spka();
+	test_tprot();
+
+done:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+	return report_summary();
+}