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 17:48:28 +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 05:34 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> 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

So you have changed the code to not automatically make a usage domain a
control domain in the bitfield (and you could still use it as a usage
domain). Correct?
I think this is probably expected. the "usage implies control" seems to 
be a convention implemented by HMC (lpar) and z/VM but millicode offers 
the bits to have usage-only domains. As LPAR and z/VM will always enable
any usage-domain to also be a control domain we should do the same.


> It seems that the HMC enforce the LPARs to have access to their usage domain (AFAIU from Harald)