lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 04/16] s390/zcrypt: driver callback to indicate resource in use
From
Date


On 9/17/20 8:14 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:32:35 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/20 11:29 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:56:04 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Introduces a new driver callback to prevent a root user from unbinding
>>>> an AP queue from its device driver if the queue is in use. The intent of
>>>> this callback is to provide a driver with the means to prevent a root user
>>>> from inadvertently taking a queue away from a matrix mdev and giving it to
>>>> the host while it is assigned to the matrix mdev. The callback will
>>>> be invoked whenever a change to the AP bus's sysfs apmask or aqmask
>>>> attributes would result in one or more AP queues being removed from its
>>>> driver. If the callback responds in the affirmative for any driver
>>>> queried, the change to the apmask or aqmask will be rejected with a device
>>>> in use error.
>>>>
>>>> For this patch, only non-default drivers will be queried. Currently,
>>>> there is only one non-default driver, the vfio_ap device driver. The
>>>> vfio_ap device driver facilitates pass-through of an AP queue to a
>>>> guest. The idea here is that a guest may be administered by a different
>>>> sysadmin than the host and we don't want AP resources to unexpectedly
>>>> disappear from a guest's AP configuration (i.e., adapters, domains and
>>>> control domains assigned to the matrix mdev). This will enforce the proper
>>>> procedure for removing AP resources intended for guest usage which is to
>>>> first unassign them from the matrix mdev, then unbind them from the
>>>> vfio_ap device driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>> This looks a bit odd...
>> I've removed all of those. These kernel test robot errors were flagged
>> in the last series. The review comments from the robot suggested
>> the reported-by, but I assume that was for patches intended to
>> fix those errors, so I am removing these as per Christian's comments.
> Yes, I think the Reported-by: mostly makes sense if you include a patch
> to fix something on top.
>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.h | 4 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>> @@ -1107,12 +1118,70 @@ static ssize_t apmask_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int __verify_card_reservations(struct device_driver *drv, void *data)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int rc = 0;
>>>> + struct ap_driver *ap_drv = to_ap_drv(drv);
>>>> + unsigned long *newapm = (unsigned long *)data;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * No need to verify whether the driver is using the queues if it is the
>>>> + * default driver.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (ap_drv->flags & AP_DRIVER_FLAG_DEFAULT)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* The non-default driver's module must be loaded */
>>>> + if (!try_module_get(drv->owner))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ap_drv->in_use)
>>>> + if (ap_drv->in_use(newapm, ap_perms.aqm))
>>>> + rc = -EADDRINUSE;
>>> ISTR that Christian suggested -EBUSY in a past revision of this series?
>>> I think that would be more appropriate.
>> I went back and looked and sure enough, he did recommend that.
>> You have a great memory! I didn't respond to that comment, so I
>> must have missed it at the time.
>>
>> I personally prefer EADDRINUSE because I think it is more indicative
>> of the reason an AP resource can not be assigned back to the host
>> drivers is because it is in use by a guest or, at the very least, reserved
>> for use by a guest (i.e., assigned to an mdev). To say it is busy implies
>> that the device is busy performing encryption services which may or
>> may not be true at a given moment. Even if so, that is not the reason
>> for refusing to allow reassignment of the device.
> I have a different understanding of these error codes: EADDRINUSE is
> something used in the networking context when an actual address is
> already used elsewhere. EBUSY is more of a generic error that indicates
> that a certain resource is not free to perform the requested operation;
> it does not necessarily mean that the resource is currently actively
> doing something. Kind of when you get EBUSY when trying to eject
> something another program holds a reference on: that other program
> might not actually be doing anything, but it potentially could.

I'll go ahead and change it to -EBUSY.

>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-17 17:05    [W:0.085 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site