Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto adapters

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:08:01 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:


> I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I'll attempt to answer
> what I think you're asking. A new type of mediated matrix device
> will be introduced to configure a virtual matrix for a guest that
> provides the interfaces to map a virtual adapter/domain ID to one
> or more real adapter/domain IDs. If by virtualization facility,
> you are talking about the VFIO AP matrix driver, then yes,
> the driver will handle ioctl requests based on the type of the
> mediated matrix device through which the request was submitted:
> 
> If the request is to configure the KVM guest's matrix:
> 
> * If the mediated matrix device type is passthrough:
>    * Do validation of matrix
>    * Configure the APM, AQM and ADM in the KVM guest's CRYCB
>      according to the configuration specified via the mediated
>      device's sysfs attribute files.
> * If the mediated matrix device type is virtual:
>    * Do validation of matrix
>    * No need to configure CRYCB since all instructions will be
>      intercepted

Ok, so we would have two distinct paths here...

> 
> If the request is to execute an intercepted AP instruction:
> 
> * If the mediated matrix device type is passthrough:
>    * Forward the instruction to the AP device and return the
>      result to QEMU.
> 
> * If the mediated matrix device type is virtual:
> 
>    * Retrieve all of the real APQNs mapped to the virtual
>      adapter and domain IDs configured in the mediated matrix
>      device's sysfs attribute files
>    * If there is more than one APQN mapping, then determine
>      which would be best to use - algorithm TBD
>    * Forward the instruction to the AP device and return the
>      result.

...and two distinct paths for most instructions here as well.

> 
> Of course, these are just preliminary ideas at this time.
> I've only prototyped the sysfs configuration interfaces. No
> back end prototyping has been undertaken yet. If the ideas do
> not pan out, however; I think virtualization can be introduced
> as an independent design.

Yes, let's cross that bridge when we get to it.