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_1 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 7BEC7C433DF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6323D2077D for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727925AbgGIOvV (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:51:21 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:18396 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726353AbgGIOvU (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:51:20 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069EWgTj008126; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:51:12 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325n5xtvef-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:51:12 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 069EWv6i009579; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:51:11 -0400 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 325n5xtvd3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:51:11 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069Efn2w009788; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:09 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 325k2qrfxa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:51:09 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 069Ep5MW10551578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:06 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E23AE05F; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EDBAE051; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:51:04 +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 14:51:04 +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> <270d8674-0f73-0a38-a2a7-fbc1caa44301@linux.ibm.com> <20200709164700.09a83069.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +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: <20200709164700.09a83069.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_08:2020-07-09,2020-07-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007090104 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen