On 11/08/2017 10:29 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.11.2017 09:41, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The Crypto Control Block (CRYCB) is referenced by the SIE state
>> description and controls KVM guest access to the Adjunct
>> Processor (AP) adapters, usage domains and control domains.
>> This patch defines the AP control blocks to be used for
>> controlling guest access to the AP adapters and domains.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Message-Id: <1507916344-3896-2-git-send-email-akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index fd006a2..646e1fe 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -685,11 +685,28 @@ struct kvm_s390_crypto {
>> __u8 dea_kw;
>> };
>>
>> +#define APCB0_MASK_SIZE 1
>> +struct kvm_s390_apcb0 {
>> + __u64 apm[APCB0_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0000 */
>> + __u64 aqm[APCB0_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0008 */
>> + __u64 adm[APCB0_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0010 */
>
> Do these really have to be arrays? Also, size usually specifies bytes
> and not double words (applies also to the one definition below).
This is later used with bit operations (e.g. see [RFC 16/19] KVM: s390: interface to configure KVM guest's AP matrix)
which operate on "long *", so I think its better than a char array.
>
>> + __u64 reserved18; /* 0x0018 */
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define APCB1_MASK_SIZE 4
>> +struct kvm_s390_apcb1 {
>> + __u64 apm[APCB1_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0000 */
>> + __u64 aqm[APCB1_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0020 */
>> + __u64 adm[APCB1_MASK_SIZE]; /* 0x0040 */
>> + __u64 reserved60[4]; /* 0x0060 */
>> +};
>> +
>> struct kvm_s390_crypto_cb {
>> - __u8 reserved00[72]; /* 0x0000 */
>> - __u8 dea_wrapping_key_mask[24]; /* 0x0048 */
>> - __u8 aes_wrapping_key_mask[32]; /* 0x0060 */
>> - __u8 reserved80[128]; /* 0x0080 */
>> + struct kvm_s390_apcb0 apcb0; /* 0x0000 */
>> + __u8 reserved20[40]; /* 0x0020 */
>
> Not sure if should turn this into [0x0048 - 0x0020], just like we do for
> e.g. lowcore. But maybe the specification explicitly states "40 bytes
> reserved". The 40 makes sense.
Yes [0x0048 - 0x0020] looks better, will change.
>
>> + __u8 dea_wrapping_key_mask[24]; /* 0x0048 */
>> + __u8 aes_wrapping_key_mask[32]; /* 0x0060 */
>> + struct kvm_s390_apcb1 apcb1; /* 0x0080 */
>> };
>
> While touching all lines, can we get rid of the strange indentation
> after __u8?
yes, will also fix.
Thanks
