linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390/kvm: avoid hypfs error message

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, 20 Jun 2022 09:18:37 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/kvm: avoid hypfs error message

Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:
> Ping?
> 
> On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
>>
>> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
>> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
>>
>> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
>> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
>>   {
>>       int rc;
>> +    if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
>> +        return -ENODATA;
>> +
>>       hypfs_dbfs_init();
>>       if (hypfs_diag_init()) {

In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong.
Question to people on CC/TO.
Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message.
So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check
for KVM on error?
Or is this worse?