The SCLP boundary cross check is done by the Ultravisor for a
protected guest, hence we don't need to do it. As QEMU doesn't get a
valid SCCB address in protected mode this is even problematic and can
lead to QEMU reporting a false boundary cross error.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
Fixes: db13387ca0 ("s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary checks")
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
---
hw/s390x/sclp.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
index 00f1e4648d..0cf2290826 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
@@ -285,11 +285,6 @@ int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
goto out_write;
}
- if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, be16_to_cpu(work_sccb->h.length), code)) {
- work_sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
- goto out_write;
- }
-
sclp_c->execute(sclp, work_sccb, code);
out_write:
s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(env_archcpu(env), 0, work_sccb,
--
2.25.1
On 21.10.20 15:43, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The SCLP boundary cross check is done by the Ultravisor for a
> protected guest, hence we don't need to do it. As QEMU doesn't get a
> valid SCCB address in protected mode this is even problematic and can
> lead to QEMU reporting a false boundary cross error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: db13387ca0 ("s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary checks")
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 00f1e4648d..0cf2290826 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -285,11 +285,6 @@ int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> goto out_write;
> }
>
> - if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, be16_to_cpu(work_sccb->h.length), code)) {
> - work_sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> - goto out_write;
> - }
> -
> sclp_c->execute(sclp, work_sccb, code);
> out_write:
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(env_archcpu(env), 0, work_sccb,
>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
On 21/10/2020 15.43, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The SCLP boundary cross check is done by the Ultravisor for a
> protected guest, hence we don't need to do it. As QEMU doesn't get a
> valid SCCB address in protected mode this is even problematic and can
> lead to QEMU reporting a false boundary cross error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: db13387ca0 ("s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary checks")
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 00f1e4648d..0cf2290826 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -285,11 +285,6 @@ int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> goto out_write;
> }
>
> - if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, be16_to_cpu(work_sccb->h.length), code)) {
> - work_sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> - goto out_write;
> - }
> -
> sclp_c->execute(sclp, work_sccb, code);
> out_write:
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(env_archcpu(env), 0, work_sccb,
>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:44 -0400
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> The SCLP boundary cross check is done by the Ultravisor for a
> protected guest, hence we don't need to do it. As QEMU doesn't get a
> valid SCCB address in protected mode this is even problematic and can
> lead to QEMU reporting a false boundary cross error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: db13387ca0 ("s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary checks")
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 00f1e4648d..0cf2290826 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -285,11 +285,6 @@ int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> goto out_write;
> }
>
> - if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, be16_to_cpu(work_sccb->h.length), code)) {
> - work_sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> - goto out_write;
> - }
> -
> sclp_c->execute(sclp, work_sccb, code);
> out_write:
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(env_archcpu(env), 0, work_sccb,
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.