From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="fzLLvkQb" Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BEDBB; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:05:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3B4GlQeQ027506; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:29 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=2llLb1kIui/MWBK5f5v9qS/SbcOOe6s6AriAs60t8Ug=; b=fzLLvkQb1DM2gdh/LTi4hceHSy7WHxg/kahmGee1PjA4qUbbTB55PtXtrnNEXf/vFYE7 7p6cmnTVpEvtd18li++iH/lCJltYEvh0EOdcMjVH0emYOkYei84mtqqCI/fbhRlXsP7a Ya6CcvP7cL41Sd8VUMz+Q5ww8hFkhgX8ttGaBml8cjVGOsaI6ATtqCkLDSD7j984j6wa her+WZZm+hBox1T8CUvDHBtpv0YJJiqRELYPntWzWI627Wrq9ictmEuPf6UflSCOxIra UuIjPruLRF9x9Q/FrfIUQveElaXueB8git7XZrbTwUh8mxQ6LQl/wl9qJ3HE4mXYL2rZ uQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3usjkm0xfw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Dec 2023 17:05:28 +0000 Received: from m0353729.ppops.net (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3B4Glf3s029337; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:28 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3usjkm0x63-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Dec 2023 17:05:27 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3B4GwtZ1030022; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:23 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.8]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3urgdksdkr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Dec 2023 17:05:23 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.232]) by smtprelay06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3B4H5LjY17957484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:21 GMT Received: from smtpav05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E659C58061; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B071358043; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.61.175.104] (unknown [9.61.175.104]) by smtpav05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:05:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:05:19 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: handle response code 01 on queue reset Content-Language: en-US To: Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, jjherne@linux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, Reinhard Buendgen References: <20231129143529.260264-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> <1f4720d7-93f1-4e38-a3ad-abaf99596e7c@linux.ibm.com> <05cfc382-d01d-4370-b8bb-d3805e957f2e@linux.ibm.com> <20231204171506.42aa687f.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Tony Krowiak Organization: IBM In-Reply-To: <20231204171506.42aa687f.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: SXw2yfieEr_ilkyrdHoK7SZ5XNph7GGM X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: VHLfMhw46t83gHS96TO14pddBVkFGPeI X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.997,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-12-04_16,2023-12-04_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2312040130 On 12/4/23 11:15, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:16:31 +0100 > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> Am 04.12.23 um 15:53 schrieb Tony Krowiak: >>> >>> >>> On 11/29/23 12:12, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> Am 29.11.23 um 15:35 schrieb Tony Krowiak: >>>>> In the current implementation, response code 01 (AP queue number not valid) >>>>> is handled as a default case along with other response codes returned from >>>>> a queue reset operation that are not handled specifically. Barring a bug, >>>>> response code 01 will occur only when a queue has been externally removed >>>>> from the host's AP configuration; nn this case, the queue must >>>>> be reset by the machine in order to avoid leaking crypto data if/when the >>>>> queue is returned to the host's configuration. The response code 01 case >>>>> will be handled specifically by logging a WARN message followed by cleaning >>>>> up the IRQ resources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> To me it looks like this can be triggered by the LPAR admin, correct? So it >>>> is not desireable but possible. >>>> In that case I prefer to not use WARN, maybe use dev_warn or dev_err instead. >>>> WARN can be a disruptive event if panic_on_warn is set. >>> >>> Yes, it can be triggered by the LPAR admin. I can't use dev_warn here because we don't have a reference to any device, but I can use pr_warn if that suffices. >> >> Ok, please use pr_warn then. > > Shouldn't we rather make this an 'info'. I mean we probably do not want > people complaining about this condition. Yes it should be a best practice > to coordinate such things with the guest, and ideally remove the resource > from the guest first. But AFAIU our stack is supposed to be able to > handle something like this. IMHO issuing a warning is excessive measure. > I know Reinhard and Tony probably disagree with the last sentence > though. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Anybody else? > > Regards, > Halil