lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:52:57 +0100
From:   Harald Freudenberger <>
To:     Tony Krowiak <>,
        Christian Borntraeger <>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <>,,,,,
        Boris Fiuczynski <>,
        Cornelia Huck <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 19/19] s390/facilities: enable AP facilities needed by guest

On 12/02/2017 02:30 AM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 04:47 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 11/02/2017 07:49 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2017 11:53 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2017 04:36 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2017 08:08 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 11:25 AM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:39:04 -0400
>>>>>>> Tony Krowiak <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sets up the following facilities bits to enable the specified AP
>>>>>>>> facilities for the guest VM:
>>>>>>>>       * STFLE.12: Enables the AP Query Configuration Information
>>>>>>>>                   facility. The AP bus running in the guest uses
>>>>>>>>                   the information returned from this instruction
>>>>>>>>                   to configure AP adapters and domains for the
>>>>>>>>                   guest machine.
>>>>>>>>       * STFLE.15: Indicates the AP facilities test is available.
>>>>>>>>                   The AP bus running in the guest uses the
>>>>>>>>                   information.
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>    arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c |    2 ++
>>>>>>>>    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c b/arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c
>>>>>>>> index 70dd8f1..eeaa7db 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -74,8 +74,10 @@ struct facility_def {
>>>>>>>>                8,  /* enhanced-DAT 1 */
>>>>>>>>                9,  /* sense-running-status */
>>>>>>>>                10, /* conditional sske */
>>>>>>>> +            12, /* AP query configuration */
>>>>>>>>                13, /* ipte-range */
>>>>>>>>                14, /* nonquiescing key-setting */
>>>>>>>> +            15, /* AP special-command facility */
>>>>>>>>                73, /* transactional execution */
>>>>>>>>                75, /* access-exception-fetch/store indication */
>>>>>>>>                76, /* msa extension 3 */
>>>>>>> With this all KVM guests will always have the AP instructions available, no?
>>>>>>> In principles I like this approach, but it differs from the way z/VM does things,
>>>>>>> there the guest will get an exception if it tries to execute an AP instruction
>>>>>>> if there are no AP devices assigned to the guest. I wonder if there is a reason
>>>>>>> why z/VM does it the way it does.
>>>>>> A good question. For LPAR it seems that you have AP instructions even if you have
>>>>>> no crypto cards.
>>>>> I don't believe these facilities control whether or not AP instructions will be available
>>>>> to the guest.
>>>> This is actually handled by your patch2 enabling the ECA bit.
>>>> I think we must decide if we want to be able to disable these instructions
>>>> via the cpu model. If yes we must then couple the facilities with the enablement.
>>> The ECA.28 bit controls whether instructions are intercepted or interpreted - i.e., handled via hardware
>>> virtualization. If set, as is done in patch2, then instructions will be interpreted. I don't see how
>>> that affects enabling or disabling AP instructions, unless we don't set ECA.28, intercept every instruction
>>> and program check. Am I missing something here?
>> If we do not set ECA.28 these instructions intercept and we (the hypervisor) can then
>> decide what to do. For example we can give an PIC01 operation exception (illegal
>> instruction) - thats what we do today.
>> Now: if we want to be able to migrate a guest from a new kernel back to an old kernel,
>> there must be a way to disable the new behaviour so that the user can configure a guest
>> that does NOT have these 3 instructions. That means, I want to bind the ap instruction
>> to a cpu model feature, so that we only enable ECA.28 and the facility bits, if the
>> feature is enabled in the CPU model. Otherwise we have no control on what happens
>> when the guest issues these instructions.
>> Imagine what happens if we not do this and you migrate from an identical hw with an
>> identical libvirt/qemu but from a new kernel to an old kernel:
>> The guest boots starts up on the new kernel
>> guest kernel: drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c  ap_module_init -> ap_instructions_available
>> checks if the instructions work. They do and now the guest driver assumes that all
>> instructions will continue to work.
>> Now the guest is migrated back to an old kernel
>> sooner or later the ap_scan_bus kthread will run to scan the bus (or some crypto operation
>> is started) and the instruction will be rejected with a PIC01. kernel oops.
> There are several scenarios that have to be accounted for, such as:
> * Migrating from a linux host where both the KVM/kernel and QEMU support AP matrix
>   devices to a guest host where neither the KVM/kernel nor QEMU support AP matrix
>   devices;
> * Migrating from a linux host where both the KVM/kernel and QEMU support AP matrix
>   devices to a guest host where the KVM/kernel does not support AP matrix devices
>   but QEMU does;
> * Starting a guest on a linux host where QEMU supports AP matrix devices and
>   the KVM/kernel does not;
> * etc.
> I agree with your suggestion that defining a new CPU model feature is probably
> the best way to resolve this issue. The question is, should we define a single
> feature indicating whether AP instructions are installed and set features bits
> for the guest based on whether or not they are set in the linux host, or should
> we define additional CPU model features for turning features bits on and off?
> I guess it boils down to what behavior is expected for the AP bus running on
> the linux guest. Here is a rundown of the facilities bits associated with AP
> and how they affect the behavior of the AP bus:
> * STFLE.12 indicates whether the AP query function is available. If this bit
>   is not set, then the AP bus scan will only test domains 0-15. For example,
>   if adapters 4, 5, and 6 and domains 12 and 71 (0x47) are installed, then AP
>   queues 04.0047, 05.0047 and 06.0047 will not be made available.
STFLE 12 is the indication for Query AP Configuration Information (QCI) available.
> * STFLE.15 indicates whether the AP facilities test function is available. If
>   this bit is not set, then the CEX4, CEX5 and CEX6 device drivers discovered
>   by the AP bus scan will not get bound to any AP device drivers. Since the
>   AP matrix model supports only CEX4 and greater, no devices will be bound
>   to any driver for a guest.
This T-Bit extension to the TAPQ subfunction is a must have. When kvm only
supports CEX4 and upper then this bit could also act as the indicator for
AP instructions available. Of course if you want to implement pure virtual
full simulated AP without any real AP hardware on the host this bit can't
be the indicator.
> * STFLE.65 indicates whether AP interrupts are available. If this bit is not
>   set, then the AP bus will use polling instead of using interrupt handlers
>   to process AP events.
> If the AP bus running on the guest is expected to mimic the behavior of an
> AP bus running on the host, then I think we need a CPU model feature for each
> facility. Otherwise, I think we can group them within a CPU model feature
> that indicates AP matrix devices are supported. What say you?
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists