From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com,
jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/1] s390: virtio-ccw: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:47:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200806174744.595b9c8c.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1596723782-12798-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:23:01 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In another series I proposed to add an architecture specific
> callback to fail feature negociation on architecture need.
>
> In VIRTIO, we already have an entry to reject the features on the
> transport basis.
>
> Transport is not architecture so I send a separate series in which
> we fail the feature negociation inside virtio_ccw_finalize_features,
> the virtio_config_ops.finalize_features for S390 CCW transport,
> when the device do not propose the VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
>
> This solves the problem of crashing QEMU when this one is not using
> a CCW device with iommu_platform=on in S390.
This does work, and I'm tempted to queue this patch, but I'm wondering
whether we need to give up on a cross-architecture solution already
(especially keeping in mind that ccw is the only transport that is
really architecture-specific).
I know that we've gone through a few rounds already, and I'm not sure
whether we've been there already, but:
Could virtio_finalize_features() call an optional
arch_has_restricted_memory_access() function and do the enforcing of
IOMMU_PLATFORM? That would catch all transports, and things should work
once an architecture opts in. That direction also shouldn't be a
problem if virtio is a module.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre
>
> Regards,
> Pierre
>
> Pierre Morel (1):
> s390: virtio-ccw: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
>
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-06 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-06 14:23 [PATCH v1 0/1] s390: virtio-ccw: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection Pierre Morel
2020-08-06 14:23 ` [PATCH v1 1/1] " Pierre Morel
2020-08-06 15:47 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2020-08-07 14:25 ` [PATCH v1 0/1] " Pierre Morel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200806174744.595b9c8c.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox