On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:24:47 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 07:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:49:08 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/08/2018 11:14, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:44:27 -0400
> >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's call PAPQ(ZAPQ) to zeroize a queue:
> >>>>
> >>>> * For each queue configured for a mediated matrix device
> >>>> when it is released.
> >>>>
> >>>> Zeroizing a queue resets the queue, clears all pending
> >>>> messages for the queue entries and disables adapter interruptions
> >>>> associated with the queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -788,7 +812,10 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_release(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
> >>>>
> >>>> - kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >>>> + if (matrix_mdev->kvm)
> >>>> + kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >>> Confused. Why is the check for matrix_mdev->kvm added here?
> >> When using the KVM notifier we can get two notifications:
> >> -> KVM is here / is comming
> >> -> KVM is not here / disappearing
> >>
> >> In the first case we initialize matrix_mdev->kvm with a pointer to KVM
> >> In the second case we nullify the pointer.
> >>
> >> During the open of the mediated device, the guest should have been started
> >> or we refuse to start.
> >>
> >> During the close of the mediated device, the guest should be there, but
> >> we have no certitude that the guest did not disappear before the VFIO
> >> file being closed.
> >> Since we do not allow multiple guests using the same mediated device
> >> this case should not happen with QEMU. But I am not sure that
> >> a rogue user program could not stop KVM before closing the VFIO
> >> mediated device.
> > I'm not sure why the check is introduced in this patch, though. But
> > maybe I just need weekend :)
>
> Good catch, it belongs in patch 15 where the function is introduced.
> Is that the only reason for your objection?
Yes, this is what confused me. Moving this to patch 15 sounds like a
good idea :)
>
> >
> >> Maybe Alex can confirm this point, if not we can remove the test.
>
>
