On 12.06.19 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 12.06.19 12:39, Harald Freudenberger wrote: >> On 12.06.19 12:22, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> systemd-modules-load.service automatically tries to load the pkey module >>> on systems that have MSA. >>> >>> Pkey also requires the MSA3 facility and a bunch of subfunctions. >>> Failing with -EOPNOTSUPP makes "systemd-modules-load.service" fail on >>> any system that does not have all needed subfunctions. For example, >>> when running under QEMU TCG (but also on systems where protected keys >>> are disabled via the HMC). >>> >>> Let's use -ENODEV, so systemd-modules-load.service properly ignores >>> failing to load the pkey module because of missing HW functionality. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c >>> index 45eb0c14b880..ddfcefb47284 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c >>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/pkey_api.c >>> @@ -1695,15 +1695,15 @@ static int __init pkey_init(void) >>> * are able to work with protected keys. >>> */ >>> if (!cpacf_query(CPACF_PCKMO, &pckmo_functions)) >>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> >>> /* check for kmc instructions available */ >>> if (!cpacf_query(CPACF_KMC, &kmc_functions)) >>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> if (!cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_128) || >>> !cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_192) || >>> !cpacf_test_func(&kmc_functions, CPACF_KMC_PAES_256)) >>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> >>> pkey_debug_init(); >>> >> You missed one match in this file. Function pkey_clr2protkey() >> also does a cpacf_test_func() and may return -EOPNOTSUPP. >> I checked the call chain, it's save to change the returncode there also. > That's unrelated to module loading (if I am not wrong), shall we still > include this change here? > > Thanks! That would be nice. However, I agree it is not related to module loading. > >> If done, Thanks and add my >> reviewed-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >
