Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] s390/pkey: Use -ENODEV instead of -EOPNOTSUPP

David Hildenbrand
2019-06-12T11:08:45Z

On 12.06.19 13:07, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
> On 12.06.19 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.06.19 12:39, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
>>> On 12.06.19 12:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> systemd-modules-load.service automatically tries to load the pkey module
>>>> on systems that have MSA.
>>>>
>>>> Pkey also requires the MSA3 facility and a bunch of subfunctions.
>>>> Failing with -EOPNOTSUPP makes "systemd-modules-load.service" fail on
>>>> any system that does not have all needed subfunctions. For example,
>>>> when running under QEMU TCG (but also on systems where protected keys
>>>> are disabled via the HMC).
>>>>
>>>> Let's use -ENODEV, so systemd-modules-load.service properly ignores
>>>> failing to load the pkey module because of missing HW functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c | 6 +++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c
>>>> index 45eb0c14b880..ddfcefb47284 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c
>>>> @@ -1695,15 +1695,15 @@ static int __init pkey_init(void)
>>>> * are able to work with protected keys.
>>>> */
>>>> if (!cpacf_query(CPACF_PCKMO, &pckmo_functions))
>>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>
>>>> /* check for kmc instructions available */
>>>> if (!cpacf_query(CPACF_KMC, &kmc_functions))
>>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> if (!cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_128) ||
>>>> !cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_192) ||
>>>> !cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_256))
>>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>
>>>> pkey_debug_init();
>>>>
>>> You missed one match in this file. Function pkey_clr2protkey()
>>> also does a cpacf_test_func() and may return -EOPNOTSUPP.
>>> I checked the call chain, it's save to change the returncode there also.
>> That's unrelated to module loading (if I am not wrong), shall we still
>> include this change here?
>>
>> Thanks!
> That would be nice.
> However, I agree it is not related to module loading.

I can include that, thanks!

--

Thanks,

David / dhildenb