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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 17:34:02 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...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 22/08/2018 17:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?
> 

Yes, it may not be configurable by the HMC but if we start a guest with 
no control domain it is not a problem to access the hardware through the 
usage domain.

I tested this a long time ago, but tested again today to be sure on my LPAR.

AFAIU adding a control only domain and a control and usage domain
allows say:
control and usage domain 1
control only domain 2

Allow to send a message to domain 2 using queue 1

Allow also to send a domain modifying message to domain 1 using queue 1

control domain are domain which are controlled
It seems that the HMC enforce the LPARs to have access to their usage 
domain (AFAIU from Harald)


-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany