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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 5CB21C433DF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3EA2073A for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726964AbgGIPHX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:07:23 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:8328 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726615AbgGIPHX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:07:23 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069F3WmU001750; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:07:15 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325r2cm6kb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 11:07:14 -0400 Received: from m0098414.ppops.net (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 069F3thV004462; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:07:13 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325r2cm6j6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 11:07:13 -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 069F17MF021314; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:11 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 325u410ntv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:07:11 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 069F78sO65208640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:08 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36DB4C063; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060C34C044; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.145.152.61]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:07:07 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:06:15 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Pierre Morel 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection Message-ID: <20200709170615.468236da.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: 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> <270d8674-0f73-0a38-a2a7-fbc1caa44301@linux.ibm.com> <20200709164700.09a83069.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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_08:2020-07-09,2020-07-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007090112 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 2020-07-09 16:47, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200 > > Pierre Morel wrote: > > > >>>> +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. > >> > >> And I think easier to look for in case of debugging purpose. > >> I change it if there is more demands. > > > > Not all our end users are kernel and/or qemu developers. I find the > > messages from v4 less technical, more informative, and way better. > > > > Regards, > > Halil > > > > Can you please tell me the messages you are speaking of, because for me > the warning's messages are exactly the same in v4 and v5!? > > I checked many times, but may be I still missed something. > Sorry, my bad. My brain is over-generating. The messages where discussed at v3 and Connie made a very similar proposal to the one above which I seconded (for reference look at Message-ID: <833c71f2-0057-896a-5e21-2c6263834402@linux.ibm.com>). I was under the impression that it got implemented in v4, but it was not. That's why I ended up talking bs. Regards, Halil