linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP virtualization

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: <2e30976a-a2d0-c407-c491-acde565b63f1@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:50:00 -0400
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...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, pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@...hat.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@...ibm.com,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP
 virtualization



On 07/09/2018 05:21 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 01:10, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/29/2018 11:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> This patch provides documentation describing the AP architecture and
>>> design concepts behind the virtualization of AP devices. It also
>>> includes an example of how to configure AP devices for exclusive
>>> use of KVM guests.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> I don't like the design of external interfaces except for:
>> * cpu model features, and
>> * reset handling.
>>
>> In particular:
>>
>>
> ...snip...
> 
>> 4) If I were to act out the role of the administrator, I would prefer to think of
>> specifying or changing the access controls of a guest in respect to AP (that is
>> setting the AP matrix) as a single atomic operation -- which either succeeds or fails.
>>
>> The operation should succeed for any valid configuration, and fail for any invalid
>> on.
>>
>> The current piecemeal approach seems even less fitting if we consider changing the
>> access controls of a running guest. AFAIK changing access controls for a running
>> guest is possible, and I don't see a reason why should we artificially prohibit this.
>>
>> I think the current sysfs interface for manipulating the matrix is good for
>> manual playing around, but I would prefer having an interface that is better
>> suited for programs (e.g. ioctl).
> 
> I disagree with using ioctl.

Why? What speaks against ioctl?

> I agree that the current implementation is not right.
> The configuration of APM and AQM should always be guarantied as coherent
> within the host but it can be done doing the right checks when using the sysfs.
> 

I'm glad we agree on this one at least.

Regards,
Halil