Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection

[Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>]

On 2020-07-09 10:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu,  9 Jul 2020 10:39:19 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> 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
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   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 <asm/kasan.h>
>>   #include <asm/dma-mapping.h>
>>   #include <asm/uv.h>
>> +#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
>>   
>>   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.

And I think easier to look for in case of debugging purpose.
I change it if there is more demands.

> 
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   /* protected virtualization */
>>   static void pv_init(void)
>>   {
> 
> Either way,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> 

Thanks,
Pierre


-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen