On 12.06.19 13:07, Harald Freudenberger wrote: > 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. I can include that, thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
