linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: handle response code 01 on queue reset

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: <05cfc382-d01d-4370-b8bb-d3805e957f2e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:16:31 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...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,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: handle response code 01 on queue reset



Am 04.12.23 um 15:53 schrieb Tony Krowiak:
> 
> 
> On 11/29/23 12:12, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Am 29.11.23 um 15:35 schrieb Tony Krowiak:
>>> In the current implementation, response code 01 (AP queue number not valid)
>>> is handled as a default case along with other response codes returned from
>>> a queue reset operation that are not handled specifically. Barring a bug,
>>> response code 01 will occur only when a queue has been externally removed
>>> from the host's AP configuration; nn this case, the queue must
>>> be reset by the machine in order to avoid leaking crypto data if/when the
>>> queue is returned to the host's configuration. The response code 01 case
>>> will be handled specifically by logging a WARN message followed by cleaning
>>> up the IRQ resources.
>>>
>>
>> To me it looks like this can be triggered by the LPAR admin, correct? So it
>> is not desireable but possible.
>> In that case I prefer to not use WARN, maybe use dev_warn or dev_err instead.
>> WARN can be a disruptive event if panic_on_warn is set.
> 
> Yes, it can be triggered by the LPAR admin. I can't use dev_warn here because we don't have a reference to any device, but I can use pr_warn if that suffices.

Ok, please use pr_warn then.