From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B2CC433DF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B41205CB for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726831AbgGIK6W (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:58:22 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:17828 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726357AbgGIK6V (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:58:21 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069AW0dZ137680; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:58:17 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325uqvagwj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:58:16 -0400 Received: from m0098394.ppops.net (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 069AWrOs141843; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:58:16 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325uqvaguc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:58:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069AtdJV011983; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:13 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 325u410f14-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:58:13 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 069AwA1w58065042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:10 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A01AE045; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C8FAE04D; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3016276355.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.34.67]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:58:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection To: Halil Pasic Cc: Cornelia Huck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com References: <1594283959-13742-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1594283959-13742-3-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20200709105733.6d68fa53.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200709115553.2dde6ab1.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: <12b1ca5c-fc03-18c7-bdca-cedabc5f1e1d@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:58:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200709115553.2dde6ab1.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-09_05:2020-07-09,2020-07-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007090079 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-07-09 11:55, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:57:33 +0200 > Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:39:19 +0200 >> Pierre Morel wrote: >> >>> If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are >>> not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been >>> negotiated. Use the new arch_validate_virtio_features() interface to >>> fail probe if that's not the case, preventing a host error on access >>> attempt > > Punctuation at the end? > > Also 'that's not the case' refers to the negation > 'VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been negotiated', > arch_validate_virtio_features() is however part of > virtio_finalize_features(), which is in turn part of the feature > negotiation. But that is details. I'm fine with keeping the message as > is. > >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >>> --- >>> arch/s390/mm/init.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>> index 6dc7c3b60ef6..b8e6f90117da 100644 >>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ >>> #include >>> #include >>> #include >>> +#include >>> >>> pgd_t swapper_pg_dir[PTRS_PER_PGD] __section(.bss..swapper_pg_dir); >>> >>> @@ -161,6 +162,32 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev) >>> return is_prot_virt_guest(); >>> } >>> >>> +/* >>> + * arch_validate_virtio_features >>> + * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added >>> + * >>> + * Return an error if required features are missing on a guest running >>> + * with protected virtualization. >>> + */ >>> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev) >>> +{ >>> + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) { >>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n"); >> >> I'd probably use "legacy virtio not supported with protected >> virtualization". >> >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { >>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, >>> + "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n"); >> >> "support for limited memory access required for protected >> virtualization" >> >> ? >> >> Mentioning the feature flag is shorter in both cases, though. > > I liked the messages in v4. Why did we change those? Did somebody > complain? > > I prefer the old ones, but it any case: > > Acked-by: Halil Pasic Thanks, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen