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;
Reply-To: pmorel@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 control domains
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@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, 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
References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <660de00a-c403-28c1-4df4-82a973ab3ad5@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <82a391ee-85b1-cdc7-0f9b-d37fd8ba8e47@linux.ibm.com>
 <a43ef10f-aa91-cb4c-a8aa-cd3ce9cfebf2@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180822114250.59a250aa.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <8bc5f207-f913-825c-f9fc-0a2c7fd280aa@linux.ibm.com>
 <e36abc22-9daf-e0f4-c6b3-7adbb28db4c3@de.ibm.com>
 <f84dbcc0-f627-be02-9933-3baa953adc09@linux.ibm.com>
 <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com>
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 17:53:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <7a03a9dd-2747-3a35-3048-a0b719edb955@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 22/08/2018 17:48, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 05:34 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 22/08/2018 17:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/22/2018 01:03 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>> That's interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO this quote is quite a half-full half-empty cup one:
>>>>>> * it mandates the set of usage domains is a subset of the set
>>>>>> of the control domains, but
>>>>>> * it speaks of independent controls, namely about the 'usage domain index'
>>>>>> and the 'control domain index list' and makes the enforcement of the rule
>>>>>> a job of the administrator (instead of codifying it in the controls).
>>>>> I'm wondering if a configuration with a usage domain that is not also a
>>>>> control domain is rejected outright? Anybody tried that? :)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and no it is not.
>>>> We can use a queue (usage domain) to a AP card for SHA-512 or RSA without
>>>> having to define the queue as a control domain.
>>>
>>> Huh? My HMC allows to add a domain as
>>> - control only domain
>>> - control and usage domain.
>>>
>>> But I am not able to configure a usage-only domain for my LPAR. That seems to match
>>> the current code, no?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it may not be configurable by the HMC but if we start a guest with no control domain it is not a problem to access the hardware through the usage domain.
>>
>> I tested this a long time ago, but tested again today to be sure on my LPAR.
>>
>> AFAIU adding a control only domain and a control and usage domain
>> allows say:
>> control and usage domain 1
>> control only domain 2
>>
>> Allow to send a message to domain 2 using queue 1
>>
>> Allow also to send a domain modifying message to domain 1 using queue 1
>>
>> control domain are domain which are controlled
> 
> So you have changed the code to not automatically make a usage domain a
> control domain in the bitfield (and you could still use it as a usage
> domain). Correct?

yes
and I used Harald's libica tests to verify it in the guest.

> I think this is probably expected. the "usage implies control" seems to
> be a convention implemented by HMC (lpar) and z/VM but millicode offers
> the bits to have usage-only domains. As LPAR and z/VM will always enable
> any usage-domain to also be a control domain we should do the same.
> 
> 
>> It seems that the HMC enforce the LPARs to have access to their usage domain (AFAIU from Harald)


-- 
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany