linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization

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: <192888a1-afc8-8502-5c6f-dbb16625bda2@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Harald Freudenberger <FREUDE@...ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        berrange@...hat.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        borntrae@...ux.ibm.com, fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        heicars2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mschwid2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        Reinhard Buendgen <BUENDGEN@...ibm.com>, thuth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization

On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> (Not providing a crycb if APXA is not available would be loss of
>>>>>>> functionality, I guess? Deciding not to provide vfio-ap if APXA is not
>>>>>>> available is a different game, of course.)
>>>>>> This would require a change to enabling the CPU model feature for
>>>>>> AP.
>>>>> But would it actually make sense to tie vfio-ap to APXA? This needs to
>>>>> be answered by folks with access to the architecture :)
>>>> I don't see any reason to do that from an architectural perspective.
>>>> One can access AP devices whether APXA is installed or not, it just limits
>>>> the range of devices that can be addressed
>>> So I guess we should not introduce a tie-in then (unless it radically
>>> simplifies the code...)
>> I'm not clear about what you mean by introducing a tie-in. Can you
>> clarify that?
> Making vfio-ap depend on APXA.

I don't think vfio-ap should be dependent upon APXA for the reasons I 
stated above.

>