[PATCH v2] KVM: PPC: Report single stepping capability
Fabiano Rosas
farosas at linux.ibm.com
Tue Jun 18 05:25:49 AEST 2019
Paul Mackerras <paulus at ozlabs.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:22:19PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> When calling the KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG ioctl, userspace might request
>> the next instruction to be single stepped via the
>> KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP control bit of the kvm_guest_debug structure.
>>
>> We currently don't have support for guest single stepping implemented
>> in Book3S HV.
>>
>> This patch adds the KVM_CAP_PPC_GUEST_DEBUG_SSTEP capability in order
>> to inform userspace about the state of single stepping support.
>
> Comment/question below:
>
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
>> @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>> case KVM_CAP_IMMEDIATE_EXIT:
>> r = 1;
>> break;
>> + case KVM_CAP_PPC_GUEST_DEBUG_SSTEP:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
>> + r = 1;
>> + break;
>> +#endif
>
> In the !CONFIG_BOOKE case, this will fall through to code which will
> return 0 for HV KVM or 1 for PR KVM. Is that what was intended?
Yes. The intention is to return 0 for HV and 1 for everything else.
> If so, then why do we need the CONFIG_BOOKE case? Isn't hv_enabled
> always 0 on Book E?
Good point. I made a mistake there indeed.
> In any case, I think this needs at least a /* fall through */ comment
> in the code, and something explicit in the patch description to say
> that we intend to return 1 on PR KVM.
I'll send another version.
Thanks
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list