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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:13:17 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> >  
> 

It seems we are in violent agreement :)