linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] s390x: KVM: guest support for topology function

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]

Message-ID: <f0bf737abf480d6d16af6e5335bb195061f3d076.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:17:22 +0100
From:   Nico Boehr <nrb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, thuth@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, wintera@...ux.ibm.com,
        seiden@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] s390x: KVM: guest support for topology function

On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 10:59 +0100, Pierre Morel wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 2296b1ff1e02..af7ea8488fa2 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
[...]
>  
> -void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> +/**
> + * kvm_s390_vcpu_set_mtcr
> + * @vcp: the virtual CPU
> + *
> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present.
> + *
> + * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
> + * the guest with a topology change.
> + */
> +static void kvm_s390_vcpu_set_mtcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> +       struct esca_block *esca = vcpu->kvm->arch.sca;

utility is at the same offset for the bsca and the esca, still
wondering whether it is a good idea to assume esca here... 

[...]
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> index 098831e815e6..af04ffbfd587 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> @@ -503,4 +503,29 @@ void kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_reset_all(struct kvm
> *kvm);
>   */
>  extern unsigned int diag9c_forwarding_hz;
>  
> +#define S390_KVM_TOPOLOGY_NEW_CPU -1
> +/**
> + * kvm_s390_topology_changed
> + * @vcpu: the virtual CPU
> + *
> + * If the topology facility is present, checks if the CPU toplogy
> + * viewed by the guest changed due to load balancing or CPU hotplug.
> + */
> +static inline bool kvm_s390_topology_changed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +       if (!test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +               return false;
> +
> +       /* A new vCPU has been hotplugged */
> +       if (vcpu->arch.prev_cpu == S390_KVM_TOPOLOGY_NEW_CPU)
> +               return true;
> +
> +       /* The real CPU backing up the vCPU moved to another socket
> */
> +       if (topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->cpu) !=
> +           topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->arch.prev_cpu))
> +               return true;

Why is it OK to look just at the physical package ID here? What if the
vcpu for example moves to a different book, which has a core with the
same physical package ID?