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, 27 Jan 2022 09:45:02 -0500
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        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 12/13/21 10:44, 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.

Since the vfio_ccw module also needs the kvm module and is automatically 
loaded,
I see no problem with automatically loading the vfio_ap module. I tested 
this patch by
running all of my regression tests successfully.

>
>