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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     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 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.

Regards,
Pierre

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