From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98adbd3c-ec6f-5689-1686-2a8a7909951a@redhat.com>
On 12/08/21 11:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> But at the same time I wonder if we should just get rid of
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL and consequently kvm_arch_vcpu_fault().
>
> In practice CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL, is never enabled in any reasonable
> kernel build and consequently it's never tested; further, exposing the
> sie_block to user space allows user space to generate random SIE
> validity intercepts.
>
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL feels like something that should just be
> maintained out of tree by someone who really needs to hack deep into hw
> virtualization for testing purposes etc.
I have no preference either way. It should definitely have selftests,
but in x86 land there are some features that are not covered by QEMU and
were nevertheless accepted upstream with selftests.
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98adbd3c-ec6f-5689-1686-2a8a7909951a@redhat.com>
On 12/08/21 11:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> But at the same time I wonder if we should just get rid of
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL and consequently kvm_arch_vcpu_fault().
>
> In practice CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL, is never enabled in any reasonable
> kernel build and consequently it's never tested; further, exposing the
> sie_block to user space allows user space to generate random SIE
> validity intercepts.
>
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL feels like something that should just be
> maintained out of tree by someone who really needs to hack deep into hw
> virtualization for testing purposes etc.
I have no preference either way. It should definitely have selftests,
but in x86 land there are some features that are not covered by QEMU and
were nevertheless accepted upstream with selftests.
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98adbd3c-ec6f-5689-1686-2a8a7909951a@redhat.com>
On 12/08/21 11:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> But at the same time I wonder if we should just get rid of
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL and consequently kvm_arch_vcpu_fault().
>
> In practice CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL, is never enabled in any reasonable
> kernel build and consequently it's never tested; further, exposing the
> sie_block to user space allows user space to generate random SIE
> validity intercepts.
>
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL feels like something that should just be
> maintained out of tree by someone who really needs to hack deep into hw
> virtualization for testing purposes etc.
I have no preference either way. It should definitely have selftests,
but in x86 land there are some features that are not covered by QEMU and
were nevertheless accepted upstream with selftests.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98adbd3c-ec6f-5689-1686-2a8a7909951a@redhat.com>
On 12/08/21 11:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> But at the same time I wonder if we should just get rid of
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL and consequently kvm_arch_vcpu_fault().
>
> In practice CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL, is never enabled in any reasonable
> kernel build and consequently it's never tested; further, exposing the
> sie_block to user space allows user space to generate random SIE
> validity intercepts.
>
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL feels like something that should just be
> maintained out of tree by someone who really needs to hack deep into hw
> virtualization for testing purposes etc.
I have no preference either way. It should definitely have selftests,
but in x86 land there are some features that are not covered by QEMU and
were nevertheless accepted upstream with selftests.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:41:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98adbd3c-ec6f-5689-1686-2a8a7909951a@redhat.com>
On 12/08/21 11:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> But at the same time I wonder if we should just get rid of
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL and consequently kvm_arch_vcpu_fault().
>
> In practice CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL, is never enabled in any reasonable
> kernel build and consequently it's never tested; further, exposing the
> sie_block to user space allows user space to generate random SIE
> validity intercepts.
>
> CONFIG_KVM_S390_UCONTROL feels like something that should just be
> maintained out of tree by someone who really needs to hack deep into hw
> virtualization for testing purposes etc.
I have no preference either way. It should definitely have selftests,
but in x86 land there are some features that are not covered by QEMU and
were nevertheless accepted upstream with selftests.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-12 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-11 3:17 [PATCH] kvm: x86: move architecture-specific code into kvm_arch_vcpu_fault Hou Wenlong
2021-08-11 18:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-12 4:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 4:02 ` Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 4:02 ` Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 4:02 ` Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 4:02 ` Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 4:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: x86: move architecture specific code into kvm_arch_vcpu_fault Hou Wenlong
2021-08-12 9:04 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Refactor kvm_arch_vcpu_fault() to return a struct page pointer David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 9:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 9:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 9:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 9:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 15:41 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2021-08-12 15:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-08-12 15:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-08-12 15:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-08-12 15:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-08-23 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-23 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-23 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-23 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-23 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d29447d4-a1b4-7f12-7bbc-8dc24cb38b72@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.