linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: s390: device attribute to set AP interpretive execution

lists.openwall.net		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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <a306855f-381d-9cc6-9996-2e7f75e0bc39@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:37:36 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        cohuck@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@...hat.com, berrange@...hat.com, fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        buendgen@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: s390: device attribute to set AP
 interpretive execution

On 03/15/2018 12:00 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 15/03/2018 16:23, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> On 03/14/2018 05:57 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/14/2018 07:25 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>> The VFIO AP device model exploits interpretive execution of AP
>>>> instructions (APIE) to provide guests passthrough access to AP
>>>> devices. This patch introduces a new device attribute in the
>>>> KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO device attribute group to set APIE from
>>>> the VFIO AP device defined on the guest.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>> index a60c45b..bc46b67 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>> @@ -815,6 +815,19 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_set_crypto(struct kvm 
>>>> *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>>> sizeof(kvm->arch.crypto.crycb->dea_wrapping_key_mask));
>>>>           VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "%s", "DISABLE: DEA keywrapping support");
>>>>           break;
>>>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP:
>>>> +        if (attr->addr) {
>>>> +            if (!test_kvm_cpu_feat(kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
>>> Unlock mutex before returning?
>> The mutex is unlocked prior to return at the end of the function.
>>>
>>> Maybe flip conditions (don't allow manipulating apie if feature not 
>>> there).
>>> Clearing the anyways clear apie if feature not there ain't too bad, but
>>> rejecting the operation appears nicer to me.
>> I think what you're saying is something like this:
>>
>>     if (!test_kvm_cpu_feat(kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
>>         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>>     kvm->arch.crypto.apie = (attr->addr) ? 1 : 0;
>>
>> I can make arguments for doing this either way, but since the attribute
>> is will most likely only be set by an AP device in userspace, I suppose
>> it makes sense to allow setting of the attribute if the AP feature is
>> installed. It certainly makes sense for the dedicated implementation.
>>>
>>>> +                return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Obviously Halil is speaking on this return statement.
> Which returns without unlocking the mutex.
Got it.
>
>
>
>