lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
From
Date

gentle ping.


On 2020-07-15 13:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:16:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/15 下午5:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:31:09AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>> If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are
>>>> not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been
>>>> negotiated. Use the new arch_validate_virtio_features() interface to
>>>> fail probe if that's not the case, preventing a host error on access
>>>> attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/s390/mm/init.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>>> index 6dc7c3b60ef6..d39af6554d4f 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>>>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
>>>> #include <asm/kasan.h>
>>>> #include <asm/dma-mapping.h>
>>>> #include <asm/uv.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
>>>> pgd_t swapper_pg_dir[PTRS_PER_PGD] __section(.bss..swapper_pg_dir);
>>>> @@ -161,6 +162,33 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
>>>> return is_prot_virt_guest();
>>>> }
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * arch_validate_virtio_features
>>>> + * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return an error if required features are missing on a guest running
>>>> + * with protected virtualization.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
>>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>>>> + "legacy virtio not supported with protected virtualization\n");
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
>>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>>>> + "support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization\n");
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /* protected virtualization */
>>>> static void pv_init(void)
>>>> {
>>> What bothers me here is that arch code depends on virtio now.
>>> It works even with a modular virtio when functions are inline,
>>> but it seems fragile: e.g. it breaks virtio as an out of tree module,
>>> since layout of struct virtio_device can change.
>>
>>
>> The code was only called from virtio.c so it should be fine.
>>
>> And my understanding is that we don't need to care about the kABI issue
>> during upstream development?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> No, but so far it has been convenient at least for me, for development,
> to just be able to unload all of virtio and load a different version.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what to do with this yet, will try to think about it
>>> over the weekend. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-30 13:32    [W:0.107 / U:7.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site