linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 28/28] KVM: s390: Storage key manipulation IOCTL

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: <DFO7J08IZ4HZ.3O6LSE6J09CD3@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:33:22 +0100
From: "Christoph Schlameuss" <schlameuss@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Claudio Imbrenda" <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, <nsg@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <nrb@...ux.ibm.com>, <seiden@...ux.ibm.com>, <gra@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <schlameuss@...ux.ibm.com>, <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, <david@...hat.com>,
        <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 28/28] KVM: s390: Storage key manipulation IOCTL

On Mon Dec 22, 2025 at 5:50 PM CET, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> Add a new IOCTL to allow userspace to manipulate storage keys directly.
>
> This will make it easier to write selftests related to storage keys.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>

Please add some user documentation for the new IOCTL.

[...]

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index dddb781b0507..845417e56778 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1219,6 +1219,15 @@ struct kvm_vfio_spapr_tce {
>  	__s32	tablefd;
>  };
>  
> +#define KVM_S390_KEYOP_SSKE 0x01
> +#define KVM_S390_KEYOP_ISKE 0x02
> +#define KVM_S390_KEYOP_RRBE 0x03

Just a nitpik, but why this order? In the arch the order is ISKE, SSKE, RRBE.
Would it not be more logical to keep that order?

> +struct kvm_s390_keyop {
> +	__u64 user_addr;
> +	__u8  key;
> +	__u8  operation;
> +};
> +
>  /*
>   * KVM_CREATE_VCPU receives as a parameter the vcpu slot, and returns
>   * a vcpu fd.
> @@ -1238,6 +1247,7 @@ struct kvm_vfio_spapr_tce {
>  #define KVM_S390_UCAS_MAP        _IOW(KVMIO, 0x50, struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping)
>  #define KVM_S390_UCAS_UNMAP      _IOW(KVMIO, 0x51, struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping)
>  #define KVM_S390_VCPU_FAULT	 _IOW(KVMIO, 0x52, unsigned long)
> +#define KVM_S390_KEYOP           _IOWR(KVMIO, 0x53, struct kvm_s390_keyop)
>  
>  /* Device model IOC */
>  #define KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP        _IO(KVMIO,   0x60)