| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:37:59 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: cohuck@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: vfio_ap: link the vfio_ap devices to the
vfio_ap bus subsystem
On 20.02.2019 14:12, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
> On 18.02.19 19:08, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> Libudev relies on having a subsystem link for non-root devices. To
>> avoid libudev (and potentially other userspace tools) choking on the
>> matrix device let us introduce a vfio_ap bus and with that the vfio_ap
>> bus subsytem, and make the matrix device reside within it.
>>
>> Doing this we need to suppress the forced link from the matrix device to
>> the vfio_ap driver and we suppress the device_type we do not need
>> anymore.
>>
>> Since the associated matrix driver is not the vfio_ap driver any more,
>> we have to change the search for the devices on the vfio_ap driver in
>> the function vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved.
>>
>> Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 4 +--
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> index 31c6c84..8e45559 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>
>> static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv;
>>
>> -static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = {
>> - .name = VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME,
>> -};
>> -
>> struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
>>
>> /* Only type 10 adapters (CEX4 and later) are supported
>> @@ -62,6 +58,27 @@ static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>> kfree(matrix_dev);
>> }
>>
>> +static int matrix_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>> +{
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct bus_type matrix_bus = {
>> + .name = "vfio_ap",
>> + .match = &matrix_bus_match,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int matrix_probe(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct device_driver matrix_driver = {
>> + .name = "vfio_ap",
>> + .bus = &matrix_bus,
>> + .probe = matrix_probe,
>> +};
>> +
>> static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> @@ -71,6 +88,10 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>> if (IS_ERR(root_device))
>> return PTR_ERR(root_device);
>>
>> + ret = bus_register(&matrix_bus);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto bus_register_err;
>> +
>> matrix_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*matrix_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!matrix_dev) {
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -87,30 +108,41 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>> mutex_init(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix_dev->mdev_list);
>>
>> - matrix_dev->device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type;
>> dev_set_name(&matrix_dev->device, "%s", VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME);
>> matrix_dev->device.parent = root_device;
>> + matrix_dev->device.bus = &matrix_bus;
>> matrix_dev->device.release = vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release;
>> - matrix_dev->device.driver = &vfio_ap_drv.driver;
>> + matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv = &vfio_ap_drv;
>>
>> ret = device_register(&matrix_dev->device);
>> if (ret)
>> goto matrix_reg_err;
>>
>> + ret = driver_register(&matrix_driver);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto matrix_drv_err;
>> +
>> return 0;
>>
>> +matrix_drv_err:
>> + device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
>> matrix_reg_err:
>> put_device(&matrix_dev->device);
>> matrix_alloc_err:
>> + bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
>> +bus_register_err:
>> root_device_unregister(root_device);
>> -
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_destroy(void)
>> {
>> + struct device *root_device = matrix_dev->device.parent;
>> +
>> + driver_unregister(&matrix_driver);
>> device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
>> - root_device_unregister(matrix_dev->device.parent);
>> + bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
>> + root_device_unregister(root_device);
>> }
>>
>> static int __init vfio_ap_init(void)
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> index 272ef42..900b9cf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> @@ -198,8 +198,8 @@ static int vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved(unsigned long *apid,
>> qres.apqi = apqi;
>> qres.reserved = false;
>>
>> - ret = driver_for_each_device(matrix_dev->device.driver, NULL, &qres,
>> - vfio_ap_has_queue);
>> + ret = driver_for_each_device(&matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv->driver, NULL,
>> + &qres, vfio_ap_has_queue);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index 5675492..76b7f98 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct ap_matrix_dev {
>> struct ap_config_info info;
>> struct list_head mdev_list;
>> struct mutex lock;
>> + struct ap_driver *vfio_ap_drv;
>> };
>>
>> extern struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
>
> You are introducing a new bus just for a user space application which is unable
> to deal with a device directly attached to the root of devices ? So you are fixing
> kernel code because of disability of userspace code. Hm, you are switching
> root cause and effect. However, not my job.
the kernel rule is pretty simple. If userspace breaks due to a kernel change fix the
kernel.
>
> Why do you need this dummy bus ? Did you evaluate using a "class" subsystem
> instead ? This is very common and my assumption is that libudev is able to handle
> this. I am using a "zcrypt" class for providing additional zcrypt device nodes and
> this works fine together with udev. I would avoid the introduction and maintenance
> of bus code at any cost.
The class variant sounds promising. Pierre what do you think?
>
> Btw. having a look onto the naming ... the module is named "vfio_ap", the
> driver is named "vfio_ap", the bus is named "vfio_ap", the root bus device is
> named "vfio_ap" ... a bunch of vfio_aps naming different things.
>
> regards
> Harald Freudenberger
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists