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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180823133134.32e1d2f8.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:31:34 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...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 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> 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.  
> > 
> > Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the
> > list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage
> > domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"?
> > 
> > One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture
> > here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it?
> > 
> > [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the
> > whole infrastructure...]
> >   
> 
> When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything
> that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt.

My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt
POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling
a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.