linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 01/16] s390/vfio-ap: add version vfio

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: <20200828101002.57c0d81f.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:10:02 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/16] s390/vfio-ap: add version vfio_ap module

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:39:07 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Currently there are two tools that probably need to be aware of
> the changes to these assignment interfaces:
> * The hades test framework has tests that will fail if run against
>     these patches that should be skipped if over-provisioning is
>     allowed. There are also tests under development to test the
>     function introduced by these patches that will fail if run against
>     an older version of the driver. These tests should be skipped in
>     that case.
> * There is a tool under development for configuring AP matrix
>     mediated devices that probably need to be aware of the change
>     introduced by this series.
> 
> Since a tool would have to first determine whether a new sysfs
> interface documenting facilities is available and it would only
> expose one facility at this point, it seems reasonable for these tools
> to check for the sysfs guest_matrix attribute to discern whether
> over-provisioning is available or not. I'll go ahead and remove this
> patch from the series.

Thanks for the explanation, that seems reasonable to me.