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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 control domains
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        pmorel@linux.ibm.com, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     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>
 <dbb74c9c-93ab-ed05-fad4-ea2aa5f2b71e@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dbb74c9c-93ab-ed05-fad4-ea2aa5f2b71e@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/22/2018 01:11 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2018 05:48 PM, 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?
>
> I tested basically the same yesterday, with the same results.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm fine either way, but slightly prefer higher level management software
> and not the kernel accommodating this convention.
>
> Please consider a quote from Harald's mail in another sub-thread
>
>
> """
> ... about control domains
>
> Talked with the s390 firmware guys. The convention that the control 
> domain
> mask is a superset of the usage domain mask is only true for 1st level 
> guests.
>
> It is absolutely valid to run a kvm guest with restricted control domain
> mask bitmap in the CRYCB. It is valid to have an empty control domain 
> mask
> and the guest should be able to run crypto CPRBs on the usage 
> domain(s) without
> any problems. However, nobody has tried this.
> """
>
> I'm yet to get an explanation why was this convention established in 
> the first
> place. And I can not figure it out myself. For me a setup where I know 
> that
> the domains used by some guest can not be modified by the same guest 
> makes
> perfect sense. If I try to think in analogies, I kind of compare 
> modification
> (that is control domain) with write access, and usage (that is usage 
> domain)
> with read access to, let's say a regular file. For me, all options 
> (rw, r, and w)
> do make sense, and if I had to pick the one that makes the least sense 
> I would
> pick write only. The convention is in these terms making read-only 
> illegal. But
> should 'usage only domains' ever get identified as something somebody 
> wants to do
> we can just add an attribute for that. So I'm fine either way.

One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian 
earlier
today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that 
indicates
whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default 
could be
true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains 
as well
as satisfy the convention.

>
>
> Still I find the commit message for this patch, the implementation of
> assign_control_domain() and also the documentation slightly misleading 
> regarding
> what does one get from assign_domain.


>
>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> It seems that the HMC enforce the LPARs to have access to their 
>>> usage domain (AFAIU from Harald)
>>