linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 08/18] s390/vfio-ap: allow assignment of unavailable AP queues to mdev device

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:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 18:10:27 +0100
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 08/18] s390/vfio-ap: allow assignment of unavailable
 AP queues to mdev device

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 09:10:29 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 3/7/22 08:27, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:31:21 -0500
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 3/3/22 10:39, Jason J. Herne wrote:  
> >>> On 2/14/22 19:50, Tony Krowiak wrote:  
> >>>>    /**
> >>>> - * vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing - verifies that the AP matrix is
> >>>> not configured
> >>>> + * vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing - verify APQNs are not shared by
> >>>> matrix mdevs
> >>>>     *
> >>>> - * @matrix_mdev: the mediated matrix device
> >>>> + * @mdev_apm: mask indicating the APIDs of the APQNs to be verified
> >>>> + * @mdev_aqm: mask indicating the APQIs of the APQNs to be verified
> >>>>     *
> >>>> - * Verifies that the APQNs derived from the cross product of the AP
> >>>> adapter IDs
> >>>> - * and AP queue indexes comprising the AP matrix are not configured
> >>>> for another
> >>>> + * Verifies that each APQN derived from the Cartesian product of a
> >>>> bitmap of
> >>>> + * AP adapter IDs and AP queue indexes is not configured for any matrix
> >>>>     * mediated device. AP queue sharing is not allowed.
> >>>>     *
> >>>> - * Return: 0 if the APQNs are not shared; otherwise returns
> >>>> -EADDRINUSE.
> >>>> + * Return: 0 if the APQNs are not shared; otherwise return -EADDRINUSE.
> >>>>     */
> >>>> -static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(struct ap_matrix_mdev
> >>>> *matrix_mdev)
> >>>> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(unsigned long *mdev_apm,
> >>>> +                      unsigned long *mdev_aqm)
> >>>>    {
> >>>> -    struct ap_matrix_mdev *lstdev;
> >>>> +    struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> >>>>        DECLARE_BITMAP(apm, AP_DEVICES);
> >>>>        DECLARE_BITMAP(aqm, AP_DOMAINS);
> >>>>    -    list_for_each_entry(lstdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >>>> -        if (matrix_mdev == lstdev)
> >>>> +    list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >>>> +        /*
> >>>> +         * If the input apm and aqm belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix,  
> > How about:
> >
> > s/belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix/are fields of the matrix_mdev
> > object/  
> 
> This is the comment I wrote:
> 
>          /*
>           * Comparing an mdev's newly updated apm/aqm with itself would
>           * result in a false positive when verifying whether any APQNs
>           * are shared; so, if the input apm and aqm belong to the
>           * matrix_mdev's matrix, then move on to the next one.
>           */
> 
> However, I'd be happy to change it to whatever either of you want.

What ain't obvious for the comment is that "belong to" actually means
composition and not association. In other words, there there is no
pointer/indirection involved, a pointer that would tell us what matrix
does belong to what matrix_mdev, but rather the matrix is just a part
of the matrix_mdev object.

I don't like 'false positive' either, and whether the apm/aqm is
newly updated or not is also redundant and confusing in my opinion. When
we check because of inuse there is not updated whatever. IMHO the old
message was better than this one.

Just my opinion, if you two agree, that this is the way to go, I'm fine
with that.

Regards,
Halil