Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <069c72b6-457f-65c7-652e-e6eca7235fca@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 11:38:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked
 guest absolute memory access
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220118095210.1651483-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220118095210.1651483-7-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220118095210.1651483-7-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/01/2022 10.52, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Channel I/O honors storage keys and is performed on absolute memory.
> For I/O emulation user space therefore needs to be able to do key
> checked accesses.
> The vm IOCTL supports read/write accesses, as well as checking
> if an access would succeed.
...
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index e3f450b2f346..dd04170287fd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -572,6 +572,8 @@ struct kvm_s390_mem_op {
>   #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_LOGICAL_WRITE	1
>   #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ	2
>   #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE	3
> +#define KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ	4
> +#define KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_WRITE	5

Not quite sure about this - maybe it is, but at least I'd like to see this 
discussed: Do we really want to re-use the same ioctl layout for both, the 
VM and the VCPU file handles? Where the userspace developer has to know that 
the *_ABSOLUTE_* ops only work with VM handles, and the others only work 
with the VCPU handles? A CPU can also address absolute memory, so why not 
adding the *_ABSOLUTE_* ops there, too? And if we'd do that, wouldn't it be 
sufficient to have the VCPU ioctls only - or do you want to call these 
ioctls from spots in QEMU where you do not have a VCPU handle available? 
(I/O instructions are triggered from a CPU, so I'd assume that you should 
have a VCPU handle around?)

  Thomas