On 20.04.2018 14:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.2018 23:13, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> Introduces a new function to reset the crypto attributes for all
>> vcpus whether they are running or not. Each vcpu in KVM will
>> be removed from SIE prior to resetting the crypto attributes in its
>> SIE state description. After all vcpus have had their crypto attributes
>> reset the vcpus will be restored to SIE.
>>
>> This function is incorporated into the kvm_s390_vm_set_crypto(kvm)
>> function to fix a reported issue whereby the crypto key wrapping
>> attributes could potentially get out of synch for running vcpus.
>>
>> Reported-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> A reported-by for a code refactoring is strange.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index fa355a6..4fa3037 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -789,6 +789,19 @@ static int kvm_s390_set_mem_control(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *att
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +void kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_reset_all(struct kvm *kvm)
>> + {
>> + int i;
>> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>> +
>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_block_all(kvm);
>> +
>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu);
>> +
>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_unblock_all(kvm);
>
> This code has to be protected by kvm->lock. Can that be guaranteed by
> the caller?
Answering my own question: as the caller has access to struct kvm, the
can of course lock it :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
