From: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:37:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yt9dmtjtcaws.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220118095210.1651483-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com> (Janis Schoetterl-Glausch's message of "Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:52:01 +0100")
Hi Janis,
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> KVM needs a mechanism to do accesses to guest memory that honor
> storage key protection.
> Since the copy_to/from_user implementation makes use of move
> instructions that support having an additional access key supplied,
> we can implement __copy_from/to_user_with_key by enhancing the
> existing implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
This doesn't apply to my master branch.
> diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c b/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
> index d3a700385875..ce7a150dd93a 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
> @@ -59,11 +59,13 @@ static inline int copy_with_mvcos(void)
> #endif
>
> static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcos(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
> - unsigned long size)
> + unsigned long size, char key)
> {
> unsigned long tmp1, tmp2;
> union oac spec = {
> + .oac2.key = key,
> .oac2.as = PSW_BITS_AS_SECONDARY,
> + .oac2.k = 1,
> .oac2.a = 1,
> };
>
> @@ -94,19 +96,19 @@ static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcos(void *x, const void __user *ptr
> }
>
> static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcp(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
> - unsigned long size)
> + unsigned long size, char key)
Any special reason for using 'char' as type for key here? Given the left shift
below i would prefer 'unsigned char' to avoid having to think about
whether this can overflow. The end result wouldn't look different,
so more or less a cosmetic issue.
> {
> unsigned long tmp1, tmp2;
>
> tmp1 = -256UL;
> asm volatile(
> " sacf 0\n"
> - "0: mvcp 0(%0,%2),0(%1),%3\n"
> + "0: mvcp 0(%0,%2),0(%1),%[key]\n"
> "7: jz 5f\n"
> "1: algr %0,%3\n"
> " la %1,256(%1)\n"
> " la %2,256(%2)\n"
> - "2: mvcp 0(%0,%2),0(%1),%3\n"
> + "2: mvcp 0(%0,%2),0(%1),%[key]\n"
> "8: jnz 1b\n"
> " j 5f\n"
> "3: la %4,255(%1)\n" /* %4 = ptr + 255 */
> @@ -115,7 +117,7 @@ static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcp(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
> " slgr %4,%1\n"
> " clgr %0,%4\n" /* copy crosses next page boundary? */
> " jnh 6f\n"
> - "4: mvcp 0(%4,%2),0(%1),%3\n"
> + "4: mvcp 0(%4,%2),0(%1),%[key]\n"
> "9: slgr %0,%4\n"
> " j 6f\n"
> "5: slgr %0,%0\n"
> @@ -123,24 +125,36 @@ static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcp(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
> EX_TABLE(0b,3b) EX_TABLE(2b,3b) EX_TABLE(4b,6b)
> EX_TABLE(7b,3b) EX_TABLE(8b,3b) EX_TABLE(9b,6b)
> : "+a" (size), "+a" (ptr), "+a" (x), "+a" (tmp1), "=a" (tmp2)
> - : : "cc", "memory");
> + : [key] "d" (key << 4)
> + : "cc", "memory");
> return size;
> }
>
With that minor nitpick:
Reviewed-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-18 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-18 9:52 [RFC PATCH v1 00/10] KVM: s390: Do storage key checking Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 13:18 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-18 15:37 ` Sven Schnelle [this message]
2022-01-18 15:52 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 9:48 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-19 11:02 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 13:20 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 8:34 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 12:56 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 18:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21 7:32 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-21 11:04 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21 13:46 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 14:26 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-24 10:38 ` [RFC PATCH] uaccess: Add mechanism for " Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-24 17:41 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-25 12:35 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 13:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/10] KVM: s390: Honor storage keys when accessing guest memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 14:38 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-20 10:27 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 10:30 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 19:27 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 8:11 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 8:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 8:58 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 9:06 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/10] KVM: s390: handle_tprot: Honor storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test TEST PROTECTION emulation Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 15:40 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-21 11:03 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 12:28 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-21 13:50 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/10] KVM: s390: Add optional storage key checking to MEMOP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 11:51 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 11:52 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 12:46 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-19 12:53 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 13:17 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 10:38 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-20 11:20 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 12:23 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 12:00 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-27 16:29 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-27 17:34 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/10] KVM: s390: Rename existing vcpu memop functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test memops with storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/10] KVM: s390: Add capability for storage key extension of MEM_OP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 15:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Make use of capability in MEM_OP test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
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=yt9dmtjtcaws.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
--to=svens@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nrb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).