linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] s390: vfio-ap: Register the 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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:44:04 +0100
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jason Herne <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] s390: vfio-ap: Register the vfio_ap module for the
 "ap" parent bus

On Thu, Dec 16 2021, Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 13.12.21 16:44, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
>> On 01.12.21 15:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> The crypto devices that we can use with the vfio_ap module are sitting
>>> on the "ap" bus, not on the "vfio_ap" bus that the module defines
>>> itself. With this change, the vfio_ap module now gets automatically
>>> loaded if a supported crypto adapter is available in the host.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Note: Marked as "RFC" since I'm not 100% sure about it ...
>>>        please review carefully!
>>>
>>>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>>> index 4d2556bc7fe5..5580e40608a4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct ap_device_id ap_queue_ids[] = {
>>>  	{ /* end of sibling */ },
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(vfio_ap, ap_queue_ids);
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(ap, ap_queue_ids);
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>>   * vfio_ap_queue_dev_probe:
>> I had a chance to check this now.
>> First I have to apologize about the dispute with vfio devices appearing on the ap bus.
>> That's not the case with this patch. As Connie states the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() does not
>> change the parent of a device and vfio_ap_drv is a driver for ap devices and thus
>> belongs to the ap bus anyway.
>> So what's left is that with this change the vfio_ap kernel module is automatically loaded
>> when an ap device type 10-13 is recognized by the ap bus. So the intention of the patch
>> is fulfilled.
>> Yet another kernel module which may occupy memory but will never get used by most customers.
>> This may not be a problem but I had a glance at the list of kernel modules loaded on my
>> LPAR with and without the patch and the difference is:
>> ...
>> kvm                   512000  1 vfio_ap
>> vfio_ap                28672  0
>> ...
>> So the vfio_ap module has a dependency to the biggest kernel module ever - kvm.
>> Do I need to say something more?
>>
>> If this dependency is removed then I would not hesitate to accept this patch. However
>> this is up to Tony as he is the maintainer of the vfio ap device driver.
>>
>>
> I need to throw in another point: with building initrd with dracut the kernel module
> dependencies are evaluated. As of now this means that the zcrypt device driver
> zoo is required in case you need to have crypto support for an encrypted root or
> data disk at boot time. With vfio ap driver dependency enforced as requirement
> from the AP bus there also comes the dependency to the kvm kernel module.
> So the kvm kernel module needs to be part of the initrd now. I am not sure if this
> is desired.

Again, this simply means that the vfio-ap device needs to be
blacklisted. Not sure if building the initrd is also honouring the stuff
mentioned in man 5 modprobe.d, I'm not an expert there. But that is
nothing that the kernel should decide.