On 03/14/2018 07:25 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
The VFIO AP device model exploits interpretive execution of AP
instructions (APIE) to provide guests passthrough access to AP
devices. This patch introduces a new device attribute in the
KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO device attribute group to set APIE from
the VFIO AP device defined on the guest.
Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
[..]
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index a60c45b..bc46b67 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -815,6 +815,19 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_set_crypto(struct kvm
*kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
sizeof(kvm->arch.crypto.crycb->dea_wrapping_key_mask));
VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "%s", "DISABLE: DEA keywrapping support");
break;
+ case KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP:
+ if (attr->addr) {
+ if (!test_kvm_cpu_feat(kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
Unlock mutex before returning?
Maybe flip conditions (don't allow manipulating apie if feature not
there).
Clearing the anyways clear apie if feature not there ain't too bad, but
rejecting the operation appears nicer to me.
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ kvm->arch.crypto.apie = 1;
+ VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "%s",
+ "ENABLE: AP interpretive execution");
+ } else {
+ kvm->arch.crypto.apie = 0;
+ VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "%s",
+ "DISABLE: AP interpretive execution");
+ }
+ break;
default:
mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
return -ENXIO;
I wonder how the loop after this switch works for
KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP:
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu);
exit_sie(vcpu);
}
From not doing something like for KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP
if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
return -EBUSY;
and from the aforementioned loop I guess ECA.28 can be changed
for a running guest.
If there are running vcpus when KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP is
changed (set) these will be taken out of SIE by exit_sie(). Then for
the
corresponding threads the control probably goes to QEMU (the
emulator in
the userspace). And it puts that vcpu back into the SIE, and then that
cpu starts acting according to the new ECA.28 value. While other vcpus
may still work with the old value of ECA.28.
I'm not saying what I describe above is necessarily something broken.
But I would like to have it explained, why is it OK -- provided I
did not
make any errors in my reasoning (assumptions included).
Can you help me understand this code?
Regards,
Halil
[..]
