linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 16/17] KVM: s390: pv: add KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 16:40:36 +0100
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, scgl@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/17] KVM: s390: pv: add
 KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC

On 2/7/22 16:19, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:37:48 +0100
> Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/4/22 16:53, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
>>> Add KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC to signal that the
>>> KVM_PV_ASYNC_DISABLE and KVM_PV_ASYNC_DISABLE_PREPARE commands for the
>>> KVM_S390_PV_COMMAND ioctl are available.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 3 +++
>>>    include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
>>>    2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> index f7952cef1309..1e696202a569 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> @@ -608,6 +608,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>>>    	case KVM_CAP_S390_BPB:
>>>    		r = test_facility(82);
>>>    		break;
>>> +	case KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC:
>>> +		r = lazy_destroy && is_prot_virt_host();
>>
>> While reboot might be the best use-case for the async disable I don't
>> think we should name the capability this way.
>>
>> KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DESTR ?
> 
> then maybe
> 
> KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DISABLE ?

Sounds good to me

> 
>>
>> It's a bit long but the initial capability didn't abbreviate the
>> protected part so it is what it is.
>>
>>
>>> +		break;
>>>    	case KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED:
>>>    		r = is_prot_virt_host();
>>>    		break;
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> index 7f574c87a6ba..c41c108f6b14 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> @@ -1134,6 +1134,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_VM_GPA_BITS 207
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_XSAVE2 208
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_SYS_ATTRIBUTES 209
>>> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC 215
>>>    
>>>    #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>>>    
>>>    
>>
>