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: <56ce7a29-c7ce-1bad-c26b-945b2d8dae4b@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:41:11 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...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 23/08/2018 11:26, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/22/2018 09:16 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
...
>>>>
>>>> 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?

Yes.

>>>
>>> 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 think it is the reasonable thing to do.

>>>
>>> I'm fine either way, but slightly prefer higher level management 
>>> software
>>> and not the kernel accommodating this convention.

Please, we do not need this in a first version just make it easy
stick with what HMC does.

>>> 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.

We do not need to introduce new features now.

regards,
Pierre


-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany