linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 21/22] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP virtualization

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 17:05:31 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        cohuck@...hat.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 21/22] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP
 virtualization

On 08/22/2018 12:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
>>>> about APXA.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be a solution?
>>> Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
>>> environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM and
>>> QEMU. Only disabling subfunctions in KVM is not implemented yet.
>>>
>>> You can exclude any subfunctions/facilities that are only valid on LPAR
>>> level and cannot be used in some guest either way. (that makes life
>>> sometimes easier)
>>>
>>>
>>> I know that this might sound a little bit complicated, but it really
>>> isn't. Boils down to modifying kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init() and specifying
>>> some features+feature groups in QEMU.
>> OK, we definitively need another patch/patch-set, to handle this.
>> Do you think it can be done in another series since if we always support
>> APXA when we have AP instructions, we already have an indication that
>> APXA exist: the AP facility.
>>
> Please implement the subfunction stuff right away. This will allow to
> handle all future facilities transparently from a kernel POV.

I find your use of the term 'subfunction' confusing here. In the
kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init(void) function, it looks like the
kvm_s390_available_subfunc structure is filled in with bits
returned from CPACF queries of various MSA facilities to indicate
which CPACF functions are supported. APXA is not a subfunction but
a facility that is indicated by a bit returned from the PQAP(QCI)
instruction. If we are to implement this, wouldn't it be done as
a CPU model feature as opposed to a subfunction? Am I
misunderstanding what you are asking for?

>
> Implementing that should be easy - and I don't like gluing features
> together in such a way.
>
> You can always assure that consistent data (e.g. AP + APXA availability)
> is reported from KVM to QEMU.
>
>> Regards,
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>>
>>
>