Re: [PATCH v9 22/22] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP virtualization

Cornelia Huck
2018-08-21T16:13:29Z

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:16:15 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 08/20/2018 12:03 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:19 -0400
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >> +AP Architectural Overview:
> >> +=========================
> >> +To facilitate the comprehension of the design, let's start with some
> >> +definitions:
> >> +
> >> +* AP adapter
> >> +
> >> + An AP adapter is an IBM Z adapter card that can perform cryptographic
> >> + functions. There can be from 0 to 256 adapters assigned to an LPAR. Adapters
> >> + assigned to the LPAR in which a linux host is running will be available to
> >> + the linux host. Each adapter is identified by a number from 0 to 255. When
> >> + installed, an AP adapter is accessed by AP instructions executed by any CPU.
> >> +
> >> + The AP adapter cards are assigned to a given LPAR via the system's Activation
> >> + Profile which can be edited via the HMC. When the system is IPL'd, the AP bus
> > There's lots of s390 jargon in here... but one hopes that someone
> > trying to understand AP is already familiar with the basics...
>
> I'm not quite sure how one can describe s390-specific devices that can
> be installed
> only on an s390 system without using s390 jargon. I would think that one
> who is
> administering a linux host or guest running on an s390 system would have
> some
> basic knowledge of s390. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to
> entertain them.

I fear the jargon is mostly unavoidable :(

> >> +* AP Instructions:
> >> +
> >> + There are three AP instructions:
> >> +
> >> + * NQAP: to enqueue an AP command-request message to a queue
> >> + * DQAP: to dequeue an AP command-reply message from a queue
> >> + * PQAP: to administer the queues
> > So, NQAP/DQAP need usage domains, while PQAP needs a control domain? Or
> > is it that all of them need usage domains, but PQAP can target a control
> > domain as well?
>
> All AP instructions - the lone exception being the PQAP(QCI) subfunction -
> identify the usage domain that is the target of the instruction. I think
> using the term 'control domain' is the source of much confusion. It makes
> it seem as if there are two types of domains that serve different purposes.
> That is simply not true. A domain is a partition within an AP adapter that
> can process AP command request messages. All AP commands are sent to a
> domain. Configuring a domain as a usage domain means it can be used to
> process AP commands; in other words, it can be the target of an AP
> instruction. Configuring a domain as a control domain means it can be
> changed by an AP command. AP commands that change a domain are sent to
> a usage domain, but the domain to be changed is specified in the payload
> of the AP command message. The domain thus specified must be
> identified via the AP configuration as a control domain, or the AP command
> will be rejected.

Yes, the 'control domain' term is a source of much confusion :(

>
> >
> > [I don't want to dive deeply into the AP architecture here, just far
> > enough to really understand the design implications.]
>
> Are you suggesting some of the above should be removed? If so, what?

Not removed. What about an explanation like the following somewhere:

"AP instructions identify the domain that is targeted to process the
command: This must be one of the usage domains. They may modify a
domain that is not one of the usage domains, but the modified domain
must be one of the control domains."

I hope that is both correct and understandable ;)

> > Does the SIE complain if you specify a control
> > domain that the host does not have access to (I'd guess so)?
>
> The SIE does not complain if you specify a domain to which the host - or a
> lower level guest - does not have access. The firmware performs a logical
> AND of the guest's and hosts's - or lower level guest's - APMs, AQMs and
> ADMs
> to create effective masks EAPM, EAQM and EADM. Only devices corresponding to
> the bits set in the EAPM, EAQM and EADM will be accessible by the guest.

OK, so the guest effectively won't see the domain. That makes sense.

>
> >
> >> +
> >> +The APQNs can provide secure key functionality - i.e., a private key is stored
> >> +on the adapter card for each of its domains - so each APQN must be assigned to
> >> +at most one guest or to the linux host.
> >> +
> >> + Example 1: Valid configuration:
> >> + ------------------------------
> >> + Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
> >> + Guest2: adapter 1,2 domain 7
> >> +
> >> + This is valid because both guests have a unique set of APQNs: Guest1 has
> >> + APQNs (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6); Guest2 has APQNs (1,7) and (2,7).
> >> +
> >> + Example 2: Invalid configuration:
> >> + Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
> >> + Guest2: adapter 1 domains 6,7
> >> +
> >> + This is an invalid configuration because both guests have access to
> >> + APQN (1,6).
> > So, the adapters or the domains can overlap , but the cross product
> > mustn't? If I had
> >
> > Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
> > Guest2: adapters 3,4 domains 5,6
> >
> > would that be fine?
>
> Yes, that would be fine because Guest1 would have access to APQNs
> (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6) while Guest2 would have access to
> (3,5), (3,6), (4,5) AND (4,6), but neither would have access to
> the same APQN.

Might be a good idea to add this as an additional example.

>
> >
> > Is there any rule about shared control domains?
>
> AFAIK there isn't, but I will consult with Reinhard about that.
>
> >
> > (...)
> >
> >> +Limitations
> >> +===========
> >> +* The KVM/kernel interfaces do not provide a way to prevent unbinding an AP
> >> + queue that is still assigned to a mediated device. Even if the device
> >> + 'remove' callback returns an error, the device core detaches the AP
> >> + queue from the VFIO AP driver. It is therefore incumbent upon the
> >> + administrator to make sure there is no mediated device to which the
> >> + APQN - for the AP queue being unbound - is assigned.
> >> +
> >> +* Hot plug/unplug of AP devices is not supported for guests.
> > Not sure what that sentence means. Adding/removing devices by the
> > hypervisor is not supported? Or some guest actions, respectively
> > injecting notifications that would trigger some actions on the real
> > hardware?
>
> No means is provided to modify a guest's AP matrix - i.e., APM, AQM
> and ADM - while a guest is running. Once a guest is running, its AP
> configuration can not be changed dynamically.
>
> >
> > Do you want to add (some of) this in the future?
>
> Yes, we plan to introduce dynamic configurations in future releases.

What about the following sentence:

"Dynamically modifying the AP matrix for a running guest (which would
amount to hot(un)plug of AP devices for the guest) is currently not
supported."

>
> >
> >> +
> >> +* Live guest migration is not supported for guests using AP devices.
> > Migration and vfio is an interesting area in general :) Would be great
> > if vfio-ap could benefit from any generic efforts in that area, but
> > that probably requires that someone with access to documentation and
> > hardware keeps an eye on developments.
>
> I have briefly looked at some of the articles talking about live migration
> of passthrough devices, but nothing seemed applicable to AP architecture.

Most of the approaches to live migration of vfio devices are focused on
pci devices; even ccw devices have different needs. Any halfway generic
approach would need a common part and a backend-specific part anyway, I
think.

> From my limited perspective, it would seem that architectural changes
> would have to be implemented to fully support live migration of in-process
> AP queues.

>From what I have seen of the AP virtualization architecture, this may
very well be the case. I'll keep AP in the back of my head, but it's
probably better to focus on the easier targets first.