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: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:11:55 +0100 From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> To: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, thuth@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com, mihajlov@...ux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390: uv: Fix sysfs max number of VCPUs reporting On 19.01.21 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote: > The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the > sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no > actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's > limit. > > The naming of the field is a bit misleading. Number in this context is > used like ID and starts at 0. The query field denotes the maximum > number that can be put into the VCPU number field in the "create > secure CPU" UV call. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com> > Fixes: a0f60f8431999 ("s390/protvirt: Add sysfs firmware interface for Ultravisor information") > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org > --- > arch/s390/boot/uv.c | 2 +- > arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h | 4 ++-- > arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > index a15c033f53ca..afb721082989 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > +++ b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ void uv_query_info(void) > uv_info.guest_cpu_stor_len = uvcb.cpu_stor_len; > uv_info.max_sec_stor_addr = ALIGN(uvcb.max_guest_stor_addr, PAGE_SIZE); > uv_info.max_num_sec_conf = uvcb.max_num_sec_conf; > - uv_info.max_guest_cpus = uvcb.max_guest_cpus; > + uv_info.max_guest_cpu_id = uvcb.max_guest_cpu_num; > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > index 0325fc0469b7..c484c95ea142 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ struct uv_cb_qui { > u32 max_num_sec_conf; > u64 max_guest_stor_addr; > u8 reserved88[158 - 136]; > - u16 max_guest_cpus; > + u16 max_guest_cpu_num; I think it would read better if we name this also max_guest_cpu_id. Otherwise this looks good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists