| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5cca8962-4f08-9c92-032c-9b6d1b514e33@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:04:25 -0400
From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...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,
cohuck@...hat.com, mjrosato@...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 06/16] s390/vfio-ap: introduce shadow APCB
On 9/25/20 9:38 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:56:06 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The APCB is a field within the CRYCB that provides the AP configuration
>> to a KVM guest. Let's introduce a shadow copy of the KVM guest's APCB and
>> maintain it for the lifespan of the guest.
>>
> AFAIU this is supposed to be a no change in behavior patch that lays the
> groundwork.
I suppose this is in the eyes of the beholder because this patch does
lay the groundwork for the APQN filtering and hot plug/unplug support
introduced in subsequent patches. Maybe it will be more in line with your
expectations after I make the changes I agreed to below.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> index fc1aa6f947eb..efb229033f9e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> @@ -305,14 +305,35 @@ static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void vfio_ap_matrix_clear_masks(struct ap_matrix *matrix)
>> +{
>> + bitmap_clear(matrix->apm, 0, AP_DEVICES);
>> + bitmap_clear(matrix->aqm, 0, AP_DOMAINS);
>> + bitmap_clear(matrix->adm, 0, AP_DOMAINS);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void vfio_ap_matrix_init(struct ap_config_info *info,
>> struct ap_matrix *matrix)
>> {
>> + vfio_ap_matrix_clear_masks(matrix);
> I don't quite understand the idea behind this. The only place
> vfio_ap_matrix_init() is used, is in create right after the whole
> matrix_mdev got allocated with kzalloc.
You are correct, this does not belong here. I am going to remove
the vfio_ap_matrix_clear_masks function because that is not needed
until the filtering patch.
>
>> matrix->apm_max = info->apxa ? info->Na : 63;
>> matrix->aqm_max = info->apxa ? info->Nd : 15;
>> matrix->adm_max = info->apxa ? info->Nd : 15;
>> }
>>
>> +static bool vfio_ap_mdev_has_crycb(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
>> +{
>> + return (matrix_mdev->kvm && matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void vfio_ap_mdev_commit_crycb(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
>> +{
>> + kvm_arch_crypto_set_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm,
>> + matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.apm,
>> + matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.aqm,
>> + matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb.adm);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int vfio_ap_mdev_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct mdev_device *mdev)
>> {
>> struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
>> @@ -1202,13 +1223,12 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_group_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> if (ret)
>> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>
>> - /* If there is no CRYCB pointer, then we can't copy the masks */
>> - if (!matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd)
>> + if (!vfio_ap_mdev_has_crycb(matrix_mdev))
>> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>
>> - kvm_arch_crypto_set_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm,
>> - matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
>> - matrix_mdev->matrix.adm);
>> + memcpy(&matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb, &matrix_mdev->matrix,
>> + sizeof(matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb));
> A note on the thread safety of the access to matrix_mdev->matrix. I
> guess the idea is, that this is still safe because we did
> vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm() and that is supposed to inhibit changes the
> matrix.
>
> There are two things that bother me with this:
> 1) the assign operations don't check matrix_mdev->kvm under the lock
> 2) with dynamic, this is supposed to change (So I have to be careful
> about it when reviewing the following patches. A sneak-peek at the end
> result makes me worried).
As you will see in the subsequent patches,
all operations performed within the context of the
assign/unassign interfaces are executed under the
matrix_dev->lock. This locks access to every
matrix_mdev. When an adapter, domain or control
domain are assigned, matrix_mdev-> kvm is
checked prior to assigning anything to the guest's APCB.
This occurs in between the lock/unlock of
matrix_dev->lock.
>
>> + vfio_ap_mdev_commit_crycb(matrix_mdev);
>>
>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>> }
>> @@ -1323,6 +1343,8 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_release(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>> kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>> matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
>> }
>> +
>> + vfio_ap_matrix_clear_masks(&matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb);
> What is the idea behind this? From the above, it looks like we are going
> to overwrite matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb with matrix_mdev->matrix before
> the next commit anyway.
The clearing of the masks in the shadow_apcb is premature
and doesn't belong in this patch. There is no reason to clear
these masks at this point, so I will remove this and the
vfio_ap_matrix_clear_masks function too.
>
> I suppose this is probably about no guest unolies no resources passed
> through at the moment. If that is the case maybe we can document it
> below.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here or what I should be
documenting below.
>
>
>> mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>
>> vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index 0c796ef11426..055bce6d45db 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct ap_matrix {
>> * @list: allows the ap_matrix_mdev struct to be added to a list
>> * @matrix: the adapters, usage domains and control domains assigned to the
>> * mediated matrix device.
>> + * @shadow_apcb: the shadow copy of the APCB field of the KVM guest's CRYCB
>> * @group_notifier: notifier block used for specifying callback function for
>> * handling the VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM event
>> * @kvm: the struct holding guest's state
>> @@ -82,6 +83,7 @@ struct ap_matrix {
>> struct ap_matrix_mdev {
>> struct list_head node;
>> struct ap_matrix matrix;
>> + struct ap_matrix shadow_apcb;
>> struct notifier_block group_notifier;
>> struct notifier_block iommu_notifier;
>> struct kvm *kvm;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists