linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:50:51 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, mst@...hat.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without
 IOMMU feature

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:41:20 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 2020-06-16 14:17, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:57:26 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:52:50 +0200
> >> Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>>>>    int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >>>>>    {
> >>>>>    	int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> >>>>> @@ -179,6 +184,10 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >>>>>    	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> >>>>>    		return 0;
> >>>>>    
> >>>>> +	if (arch_needs_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> >>>>> +		!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> >>>>> +		return -EIO;
> >>>>> +  
> >>>>
> >>>> Why EIO?  
> >>>
> >>> Because I/O can not occur correctly?
> >>> I am open to suggestions.  
> >>
> >> We use -ENODEV if feature when the device rejects the features we
> >> tried to negotiate (see virtio_finalize_features()) and -EINVAL when
> >> the F_VERSION_1 and the virtio-ccw revision ain't coherent (in
> >> virtio_ccw_finalize_features()). Any of those seems more fitting
> >> that EIO to me. BTW does the error code itself matter in any way,
> >> or is it just OK vs some error?  
> > 
> > If I haven't lost my way, we end up in the driver core probe failure
> > handling; we probably should do -ENODEV if we just want probing to fail
> > and -EINVAL or -EIO if we want the code to moan.
> >   
> 
> what about returning -ENODEV and add a dedicated warning here?
> 

Sounds good at least to me.