On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:31:17 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19/02/2019 19:52, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> > On 2/18/19 1:08 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> >> Libudev relies on having a subsystem link for non-root devices. To
> >> avoid libudev (and potentially other userspace tools) choking on the
> >> matrix device let us introduce a vfio_ap bus and with that the vfio_ap
> >> bus subsytem, and make the matrix device reside within it.
> >>
> >> Doing this we need to suppress the forced link from the matrix device to
> >> the vfio_ap driver and we suppress the device_type we do not need
> >> anymore.
> >>
> >> Since the associated matrix driver is not the vfio_ap driver any more,
> >> we have to change the search for the devices on the vfio_ap driver in
> >> the function vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c | 48
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 4 +--
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> >> b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> >> index 31c6c84..8e45559 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> >> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> >> static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv;
> >> -static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = {
> >> - .name = VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME,
> >> -};
> >> -
> >> struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
> >> /* Only type 10 adapters (CEX4 and later) are supported
> >> @@ -62,6 +58,27 @@ static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release(struct
> >> device *dev)
> >> kfree(matrix_dev);
> >> }
> >> +static int matrix_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver
> >> *drv)
> >> +{
> >> + return 1;
> >
> > I think we should verify the following:
> >
> > * dev == matrix_dev->device
> > * drv == &matrix_driver
> >
> > The model employed is for the matrix device to be a singleton, so I
> > think we should verify that the matrix device and driver defined herein
> > ought to be the only possible choices for a match. Of course, doing so
> > will require some restructuring of this patch.
>
> I think Conny already answered this question.
Not quite :), but I don't think we need any magic in there, as there's
only one device and only one driver on that bus. No need to make this
more complicated.
>
> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct bus_type matrix_bus = {
> >> + .name = "vfio_ap",
> >> + .match = &matrix_bus_match,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static int matrix_probe(struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct device_driver matrix_driver = {
> >> + .name = "vfio_ap",
> >
> > This is the same name used for the original device driver. I think
> > this driver ought to have a different name to avoid confusion.
> > How about vfio_ap_matrix or some other name to differentiate the
> > two.
>
> I would like too, but changing this will change the path to the mediated
> device supported type.
Yes, we don't want to change that.
>
>
> >
> >> + .bus = &matrix_bus,
> >> + .probe = matrix_probe,
> >
> > I would add:
> > .suppress_bind_attrs = true;
> >
> > This will remove the sysfs bind/unbind interfaces. Since there is only
> > one matrix device and it's lifecycle is controlled herein, there is no
> > sense in allowing a root user to bind/unbind it.
> >
>
> OTOH bind/unbind has no impact.
> If no one else ask for this I will not change what has already been
> reviewed by Conny and Christian.
As we only have one driver, it does not really make sense anyway.
