From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
cohuck@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
jjherne@linux.ibm.com, jgg@nvidia.com,
alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390/vfio-ap: r/w lock for PQAP interception handler function pointer
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:56:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <712484a7-3ccc-5805-67fb-0b0104c27975@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210819012532.0e9c443c.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On 19.08.21 01:25, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:03:33 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19.07.21 21:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> The function pointer to the interception handler for the PQAP instruction
>>> can get changed during the interception process. Let's add a
>>> semaphore to struct kvm_s390_crypto to control read/write access to the
>>> function pointer contained therein.
>>>
>>> The semaphore must be locked for write access by the vfio_ap device driver
>>> when notified that the KVM pointer has been set or cleared. It must be
>>> locked for read access by the interception framework when the PQAP
>>> instruction is intercepted.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 8 +++-----
>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 1 +
>>> arch/s390/kvm/priv.c | 10 ++++++----
>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 2 +-
>>> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> index 9b4473f76e56..f18849d259e6 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> @@ -798,14 +798,12 @@ struct kvm_s390_cpu_model {
>>> unsigned short ibc;
>>> };
>>>
>>> -struct kvm_s390_module_hook {
>>> - int (*hook)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> - struct module *owner;
>>> -};
>>> +typedef int (*crypto_hook)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>
>>> struct kvm_s390_crypto {
>>> struct kvm_s390_crypto_cb *crycb;
>>> - struct kvm_s390_module_hook *pqap_hook;
>>> + struct rw_semaphore pqap_hook_rwsem;
>>> + crypto_hook *pqap_hook;
>>> __u32 crycbd;
>>> __u8 aes_kw;
>>> __u8 dea_kw;
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> index b655a7d82bf0..a08f242a9f27 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> @@ -2630,6 +2630,7 @@ static void kvm_s390_crypto_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>> {
>>> kvm->arch.crypto.crycb = &kvm->arch.sie_page2->crycb;
>>> kvm_s390_set_crycb_format(kvm);
>>> + init_rwsem(&kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>>>
>>> if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 76))
>>> return;
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>>> index 9928f785c677..6bed9406c1f3 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>>> @@ -610,6 +610,7 @@ static int handle_io_inst(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> {
>>> struct ap_queue_status status = {};
>>> + crypto_hook pqap_hook;
>>> unsigned long reg0;
>>> int ret;
>>> uint8_t fc;
>>> @@ -657,15 +658,16 @@ static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> * Verify that the hook callback is registered, lock the owner
>>> * and call the hook.
>>> */
>>> + down_read(&vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>>> if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook) { <--- HERE
>>> - if (!try_module_get(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner))
>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> - ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
>>> - module_put(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner);
>>> + pqap_hook = *vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook;
>>
>> Dont we have to check for NULL here? If not can you add a comment why?
>
> I believe we did the necessary check on the line I just marked with
> "<--- HERE".
Right, I missed that.
Then
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>
> I find that "*" operator confusing in this context as it doesn't do
> any good for us. I believe this situation is described in 6.5.3.2.4 of
> the c11 standard. For convenience I will cite from the corresponding
> draft:
> "The unary * operator denotes indirection. If the operand points to a
> function, the result is a function designator; if it points to an
> object, the result is an lvalue designating the object. If the operand
> has type ‘‘pointer to type’’, the result has type ‘‘type’’. If an
> invalid value has been assigned to the pointer, the behavior of the
> unary * operator is undefined."
>
> Frankly I also fail to see the benefit of introducing the local variable
> named "pqap_hook", but back then I decided to not complain about style.
Right we can probably do better, but I would rather have the functional
fix in now.
>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>>
>>
>>> + ret = pqap_hook(vcpu);
>> [...]
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-19 6:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-19 19:35 [PATCH 0/2] s390/vfio-ap: do not open code locks for VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM notification Tony Krowiak
2021-07-19 19:35 ` [PATCH 1/2] s390/vfio-ap: r/w lock for PQAP interception handler function pointer Tony Krowiak
2021-08-18 17:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-18 23:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-08-19 6:56 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2021-08-19 13:36 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-19 21:42 ` Halil Pasic
2021-08-23 13:08 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-19 13:20 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-19 17:54 ` Alex Williamson
2021-08-19 17:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-08-20 15:59 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-20 22:05 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-20 22:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-08-23 15:17 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-20 22:41 ` Alex Williamson
2021-08-23 20:51 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-07-19 19:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: replace open coded locks for VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM notification Tony Krowiak
2021-07-21 14:45 ` Halil Pasic
2021-07-22 13:09 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-07-23 14:26 ` Halil Pasic
2021-07-23 21:24 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-07-26 20:36 ` Halil Pasic
2021-07-26 22:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-07-26 22:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-07-28 13:43 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-07-28 19:42 ` Halil Pasic
2021-07-30 13:33 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-07-27 6:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-21 19:37 ` Jason J. Herne
2021-07-22 13:16 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-02 13:10 ` [PATCH 0/2] s390/vfio-ap: do not open code " Tony Krowiak
2021-08-02 13:53 ` Halil Pasic
2021-08-02 16:32 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-03 13:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-08-03 13:34 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-08-18 15:59 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-18 16:39 ` Alex Williamson
2021-08-18 16:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-08-18 22:52 ` Halil Pasic
2021-08-19 15:30 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-08-20 14:24 ` Tony Krowiak
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=712484a7-3ccc-5805-67fb-0b0104c27975@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jjherne@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).