linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains

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: <e36abc22-9daf-e0f4-c6b3-7adbb28db4c3@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 17:11:55 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.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,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 control domains



On 08/22/2018 01:03 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> That's interesting.
>>
>>> IMHO this quote is quite a half-full half-empty cup one:
>>> * it mandates the set of usage domains is a subset of the set
>>> of the control domains, but
>>> * it speaks of independent controls, namely about the 'usage domain index'
>>> and the 'control domain index list' and makes the enforcement of the rule
>>> a job of the administrator (instead of codifying it in the controls).
>> I'm wondering if a configuration with a usage domain that is not also a
>> control domain is rejected outright? Anybody tried that? :)
> 
> Yes, and no it is not.
> We can use a queue (usage domain) to a AP card for SHA-512 or RSA without
> having to define the queue as a control domain.

Huh? My HMC allows to add a domain as
- control only domain
- control and usage domain.

But I am not able to configure a usage-only domain for my LPAR. That seems to match
the current code, no?