linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection

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: <c9be019f-236e-5e44-64b6-0875cd40ab11@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.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@...son.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device
 protection



On 2020-07-09 16:47, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
>>>> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
>>>
>>> I'd probably use "legacy virtio not supported with protected
>>> virtualization".
>>>    
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
>>>> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>>>> +			 "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
>>>
>>> "support for limited memory access required for protected
>>> virtualization"
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Mentioning the feature flag is shorter in both cases, though.
>>
>> And I think easier to look for in case of debugging purpose.
>> I change it if there is more demands.
> 
> Not all our end users are kernel and/or qemu developers. I find the
> messages from v4 less technical, more informative, and way better.
> 
> Regards,
> Halil
> 

Can you please tell me the messages you are speaking of, because for me 
the warning's messages are exactly the same in v4 and v5!?

I checked many times, but may be I still missed something.

Regards,
Pierre


-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen