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  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:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:26:08 +0200
From:   Tony Krowiak <>
To:, Halil Pasic <>,
        Tony Krowiak <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP

On 07/09/2018 11:21 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 <>
>> 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.
> 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.

What sysfs interfaces do you suggest?

> Regards,
> Pierre

Powered by blists - more mailing lists