Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     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 01:11 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2018 05:48 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> 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 tested basically the same yesterday, with the same results.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm fine either way, but slightly prefer higher level management software
> and not the kernel accommodating this convention.
>
> Please consider a quote from Harald's mail in another sub-thread
>
>
> """
> ... about control domains
>
> Talked with the s390 firmware guys. The convention that the control 
> domain
> mask is a superset of the usage domain mask is only true for 1st level 
> guests.
>
> It is absolutely valid to run a kvm guest with restricted control domain
> mask bitmap in the CRYCB. It is valid to have an empty control domain 
> mask
> and the guest should be able to run crypto CPRBs on the usage 
> domain(s) without
> any problems. However, nobody has tried this.
> """
>
> I'm yet to get an explanation why was this convention established in 
> the first
> place. And I can not figure it out myself. For me a setup where I know 
> that
> the domains used by some guest can not be modified by the same guest 
> makes
> perfect sense. If I try to think in analogies, I kind of compare 
> modification
> (that is control domain) with write access, and usage (that is usage 
> domain)
> with read access to, let's say a regular file. For me, all options 
> (rw, r, and w)
> do make sense, and if I had to pick the one that makes the least sense 
> I would
> pick write only. The convention is in these terms making read-only 
> illegal. But
> should 'usage only domains' ever get identified as something somebody 
> wants to do
> we can just add an attribute for that. So I'm fine either way.

One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian 
earlier
today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that 
indicates
whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default 
could be
true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains 
as well
as satisfy the convention.

>
>
> Still I find the commit message for this patch, the implementation of
> assign_control_domain() and also the documentation slightly misleading 
> regarding
> what does one get from assign_domain.



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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists