From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: s390/CPACF: Choose crypto control block format Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:48:09 +0100 Message-ID: <54D22319.4010009@redhat.com> References: <1423043092-34044-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1423043092-34044-5-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <54D217F8.5050302@redhat.com> <54D2191C.9000604@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KVM , Cornelia Huck , Jens Freimann , linux-s390 , Alexander Graf , Tony Krowiak To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33545 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933624AbbBDNsZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:48:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <54D2191C.9000604@de.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/02/2015 14:05, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> > >> > Could this also be part of the "things" that KVM can choose to enable, >> > even though it's not a facility? > Can you re-ask that question? Not sure what you want to know. > > This is mostly a fixup for z13, which wants to have a bigger control block. but > this block is not guest visible. Okay, this is what I was asking. If the block is not guest visible that's fine. What happens if the guest executes PQAP(QCI)? Paolo > Talking about key wrapping, this is actually masked via a facility bit (for MSA-3 > and MSA-4), therefore we have the test_vfacility thing in that function.