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]

Message-ID: <20180823122525.02fc4af3.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:25:25 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.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, 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 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...]