Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:57:55 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com,
        fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 17/22] s390: vfio-ap: zeroize the AP queues.
Message-ID: <20180813085755.6ad962fb.cohuck@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <14983b58-f53b-8bd9-179e-29b9a69c21d8@linux.ibm.com>
References: <1533739472-7172-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <1533739472-7172-18-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180810111445.015fcf2a.cohuck@redhat.com>
        <fa85257e-fda1-8f1d-aa7c-c98e74196d37@linux.ibm.com>
        <20180810131648.4fab1d7a.cohuck@redhat.com>
        <14983b58-f53b-8bd9-179e-29b9a69c21d8@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:24:47 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/2018 07:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:49:08 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 10/08/2018 11:14, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Wed,  8 Aug 2018 10:44:27 -0400
> >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's call PAPQ(ZAPQ) to zeroize a queue:
> >>>>
> >>>> * For each queue configured for a mediated matrix device
> >>>>     when it is released.
> >>>>
> >>>> Zeroizing a queue resets the queue, clears all pending
> >>>> messages for the queue entries and disables adapter interruptions
> >>>> associated with the queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>    2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -788,7 +812,10 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_release(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>    	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
> >>>>    
> >>>> -	kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >>>> +	if (matrix_mdev->kvm)
> >>>> +		kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);  
> >>> Confused. Why is the check for matrix_mdev->kvm added here?  
> >> When using the KVM notifier we can get two notifications:  
> >> -> KVM is here / is comming
> >> -> KVM is not here / disappearing  
> >>
> >> In the first case we initialize matrix_mdev->kvm with a pointer to KVM
> >> In the second case we nullify the pointer.
> >>
> >> During the open of the mediated device, the guest should have been started
> >> or we refuse to start.
> >>
> >> During the close of the mediated device, the guest should be there, but
> >> we have no certitude that the guest did not disappear before the VFIO
> >> file being closed.
> >> Since we do not allow multiple guests using the same mediated device
> >> this case should not happen with QEMU. But I am not sure that
> >> a rogue user program could not stop KVM before closing the VFIO
> >> mediated device.  
> > I'm not sure why the check is introduced in this patch, though. But
> > maybe I just need weekend :)  
> 
> Good catch, it belongs in patch 15 where the function is introduced.
> Is that the only reason for your objection?

Yes, this is what confused me. Moving this to patch 15 sounds like a
good idea :)

> 
> >  
> >> Maybe Alex can confirm this point, if not we can remove the test.  
> 
>