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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,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 B154BC04AB3 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856F4214D8 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726747AbfE0MPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 08:15:38 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:52904 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726150AbfE0MPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 08:15:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4RCCfxk025950 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 08:15:37 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2srdyde3ey-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 08:15:36 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:33 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:30 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4RCFSUr32309292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:28 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B259A405C; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEEBA4065; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.152.98.56] (unknown [9.152.98.56]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:15:27 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: mimu@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] s390/cio: add basic protected virtualization support To: Cornelia Huck Cc: KVM Mailing List , Linux-S390 Mailing List , Sebastian Ott , Heiko Carstens , Halil Pasic , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Viktor Mihajlovski , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Farhan Ali , Eric Farman , Pierre Morel References: <20190523162209.9543-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190523162209.9543-4-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190527123802.54cd3589.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Michael Mueller Organization: IBM Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:15:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190527123802.54cd3589.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19052712-0020-0000-0000-00000340E72A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19052712-0021-0000-0000-00002193DE0B Message-Id: <6cfd1a67-b600-169e-b0c1-64362c7129f8@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-27_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 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=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905270086 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 27.05.19 12:38, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:04 +0200 > Michael Mueller wrote: > >> From: Halil Pasic >> >> As virtio-ccw devices are channel devices, we need to use the dma area >> for any communication with the hypervisor. >> >> It handles neither QDIO in the common code, nor any device type specific >> stuff (like channel programs constructed by the DASD driver). >> >> An interesting side effect is that virtio structures are now going to >> get allocated in 31 bit addressable storage. >> >> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic > > [Side note: you really should add your s-o-b if you send someone else's > patches... if Halil ends up committing them, it's fine, though.] My real problem here is that Halil is writing comments and patches after I have prepared all my changes. ;) And now this contnues... Michael > >> --- >> arch/s390/include/asm/ccwdev.h | 4 +++ >> drivers/s390/cio/ccwreq.c | 9 +++--- >> drivers/s390/cio/device.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> drivers/s390/cio/device_fsm.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++------------- >> drivers/s390/cio/device_id.c | 20 +++++++------ >> drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c | 21 +++++++++++-- >> drivers/s390/cio/device_pgid.c | 22 +++++++------- >> drivers/s390/cio/device_status.c | 24 +++++++-------- >> drivers/s390/cio/io_sch.h | 20 +++++++++---- >> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 10 ------- >> 10 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) >> > > (...) > >> @@ -1593,20 +1622,31 @@ struct ccw_device * __init ccw_device_create_console(struct ccw_driver *drv) >> return ERR_CAST(sch); >> >> io_priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*io_priv), GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA); >> - if (!io_priv) { >> - put_device(&sch->dev); >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> - } >> + if (!io_priv) >> + goto err_priv; >> + io_priv->dma_area = dma_alloc_coherent(&sch->dev, >> + sizeof(*io_priv->dma_area), >> + &io_priv->dma_area_dma, GFP_KERNEL); > > Even though we'll only end up here for 3215 or 3270 consoles, this sent > me looking. > > This code is invoked via console_init(). A few lines down in > start_kernel(), we have > > /* > * This needs to be called before any devices perform DMA > * operations that might use the SWIOTLB bounce buffers. It will > * mark the bounce buffers as decrypted so that their usage will > * not cause "plain-text" data to be decrypted when accessed. > */ > mem_encrypt_init(); > > So, I'm wondering if creating the console device interacts in any way > with the memory encryption interface? > > [Does basic recognition work if you start a protected virt guest with a > 3270 console? I realize that the console is unlikely to work, but that > should at least exercise this code path.] > >> + if (!io_priv->dma_area) >> + goto err_dma_area; >> set_io_private(sch, io_priv); >> cdev = io_subchannel_create_ccwdev(sch); >> if (IS_ERR(cdev)) { >> put_device(&sch->dev); >> + dma_free_coherent(&sch->dev, sizeof(*io_priv->dma_area), >> + io_priv->dma_area, io_priv->dma_area_dma); >> kfree(io_priv); >> return cdev; >> } >> cdev->drv = drv; >> ccw_device_set_int_class(cdev); >> return cdev; >> + >> +err_dma_area: >> + kfree(io_priv); >> +err_priv: >> + put_device(&sch->dev); >> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> } >> >> void __init ccw_device_destroy_console(struct ccw_device *cdev) >