linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] s390/vfio-ap: improve reaction to response code 07 from PQAP(AQIC) command

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: <0bed3d29-7fb1-d56d-5f12-e2010ae7d97f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:15:11 -0400
From:   Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] s390/vfio-ap: improve reaction to response code 07
 from PQAP(AQIC) command

On 10/18/23 9:38 AM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> Let's improve the vfio_ap driver's reaction to reception of response code
> 07 from the PQAP(AQIC) command when enabling interrupts on behalf of a
> guest:
> 
> * Unregister the guest's ISC before the pages containing the notification
>   indicator bytes are unpinned.
> 
> * Capture the return code from the kvm_s390_gisc_unregister function and
>   log a DBF warning if it fails.
> 
> Suggested-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>

I went back-and-forth on whether this should be a stable/fixes candidate but I think no...  I happened to notice it while reviewing other code, I'm not aware that it's ever created a visible issue, and it's on a pretty immediate error path.  If anyone thinks it should be a stable candidate I have no objection but in that case would suggest to break the patch up to separate the new WARN from the fix.