linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state

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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:44:29 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same
> states.
> Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c     | 9 ---------
>  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 -
>  2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)

I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things:
- BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request
- BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it

It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we?