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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 5FA0BC4321D for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCE12177A for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:08:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1FCE12177A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727291AbeHUU25 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:28:57 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:47318 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727134AbeHUU25 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:28:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7LH6p4q064120 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:58 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2m0nmmb1w1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:58 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:57 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:53 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7LH7pPh46399714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:07:51 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6717EB2065; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAE2B205F; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oc8043147753.ibm.com (unknown [9.80.223.104]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com> <660de00a-c403-28c1-4df4-82a973ab3ad5@linux.ibm.com> <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18082117-0072-0000-0000-00000394B31A X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009586; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01076809; UDB=6.00555128; IPR=6.00856783; MB=3.00022851; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-08-21 17:07:55 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18082117-0073-0000-0000-0000492772FC Message-Id: <82a391ee-85b1-cdc7-0f9b-d37fd8ba8e47@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-21_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808210177 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/21/2018 11:25 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:41:32 -0400 > Tony Krowiak wrote: > >> On 08/20/2018 10:23 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:09 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak wrote: >>> >>>> From: Tony Krowiak >>>> >>>> Provides the sysfs interfaces for: >>>> >>>> 1. Assigning AP control domains to the mediated matrix device >>>> >>>> 2. Unassigning AP control domains from a mediated matrix device >>>> >>>> 3. Displaying the control domains assigned to a mediated matrix >>>> device >>>> >>>> The IDs of the AP control domains assigned to the mediated matrix >>>> device are stored in an AP domain mask (ADM). The bits in the ADM, >>>> from most significant to least significant bit, correspond to >>>> AP domain numbers 0 to 255. On some systems, the maximum allowable >>>> domain number may be less than 255 - depending upon the host's >>>> AP configuration - and assignment may be rejected if the input >>>> domain ID exceeds the limit. >>> Please remind me of the relationship between control domains and usage >>> domains... IIRC, usage domains allow both requests and configuration, >>> while control domains allow only configuration, and are by convention a >>> superset of usage domains. >> A usage domain is a domain to which an AP command-request message can be >> submitted for processing. A control domain is a domain that can >> be changed by an AP command request message submitted to a usage domain. >> AP command request messages to configure a domain will contain the domain >> number of the domain to be modified. The AP firmware will check the >> control domain mask (ADM) and will allow the request to proceed only if >> the corresponding bit in the ADM is set. > Thanks to you and Halil for the explanation. > >>> Is there a hard requirement somewhere in there, or can the admin >>> cheerfully use different masks for usage domains and control domains >>> without the SIE choking on it? >> There is no hard requirement that control domains must be a superset of >> the usage domains, it is merely an architectural convention. AFAIK, >> SIE doesn't enforce this and will not break if the convention is not >> enforced externally. Having said that, you should note that the AQM >> and ADM masks configured for the mediated matrix device will be logically >> OR'd together to create the ADM stored in the CRYCB referenced from the >> guest's SIE state description. In other words, we are enforcing the >> convention in our software. > Hm, that's interesting, as Halil argued that we should not enforce it > in the kernel. Might be somewhat surprising as well. If that is really > the way to do it, this needs to be documented clearly. This convention has been enforced by the kernel since v1. This is also enforced by both the LPAR as well as in z/VM. The following is from the PR/SM Planning Guide: Control Domain A logical partition's control domains are those cryptographic domains for which remote secure administration functions can be established and administered from this logical partition. This logical partition’s control domains must include its usage domains. For each index selected in the usage domain index list, you must select the same index in the control domain index list Consequently, I'm going to opt for ensuring this is clearly documented. Based on the fact you've requested clarification of many points described in this section of the doc, I think I'll try putting my meager skills as a wordsmith to work to hopefully clarify things. I'll run it by you when I complete that task to see if I've succeeded:) >