On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:24:06 +0200
Stefan Haberland <sth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 06.10.20 um 16:46 schrieb Cornelia Huck:
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 21:39:32 +0200
> > Stefan Haberland <sth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Add an interface in the CIO layer to retrieve the information about the
> >> Endpoint-Security Mode (ESM) of the specified CU. The ESM values are
> >> defined as 0-None, 1-Authenticated or 2, 3-Encrypted.
> >>
> >> Reference-ID: IO1812
> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ott <sebott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> [vneethv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: cleaned-up and modified description]
> >> Signed-off-by: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Haberland <sth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h | 1 +
> >> drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+)
> >
> > (...)
> >
> >> +/**
> >> + * chsc_scud() - Store control-unit description.
> >> + * @cu: number of the control-unit
> >> + * @esm: 8 1-byte endpoint security mode values
> >> + * @esm_valid: validity mask for @esm
> >> + *
> >> + * Interface to retrieve information about the endpoint security
> >> + * modes for up to 8 paths of a control unit.
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns 0 on success.
> >> + */
> >> +int chsc_scud(u16 cu, u64 *esm, u8 *esm_valid)
> >> +{
> >> + struct chsc_scud *scud = chsc_page;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> > I'm wondering if it would make sense to check in the chsc
> > characteristics whether that chsc is actually installed (if there's
> > actually a bit for it, although I'd expect so). Some existing chscs
> > check for bits in the characteristics, others don't. (Don't know
> > whether QEMU is the only platform that doesn't provide this chsc.)
>
> I don't see any benefit in checking upfront if the CHSC is supported -
> we'll get
> a corresponding CHSC response code and since no error message is logged
> for this
> case, the outcome would be the same as if we checked for the
> characteristics bit
> beforehand.
Yes, that's probably fine, then.
>
>
> >> + spin_lock_irq(&chsc_page_lock);
> >> + memset(chsc_page, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> >> + scud->request.length = SCUD_REQ_LEN;
> >> + scud->request.code = SCUD_REQ_CMD;
> >> + scud->fmt = 0;
> >> + scud->cssid = 0;
> >> + scud->first_cu = cu;
> >> + scud->last_cu = cu;
> >> +
> >> + ret = chsc(scud);
> >> + if (!ret)
> >> + ret = chsc_error_from_response(scud->response.code);
> >> +
> >> + if (!ret && (scud->response.length <= 8 || scud->fmt_resp != 0
> >> + || !(scud->cudb[0].flags & 0x80)
> >> + || scud->cudb[0].cu != cu)) {
> >> +
> >> + CIO_MSG_EVENT(2, "chsc: scud failed rc=%04x, L2=%04x "
> >> + "FMT=%04x, cudb.flags=%02x, cudb.cu=%04x",
> >> + scud->response.code, scud->response.length,
> >> + scud->fmt_resp, scud->cudb[0].flags, scud->cudb[0].cu);
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + memcpy(esm, scud->cudb[0].esm, sizeof(*esm));
> >> + *esm_valid = scud->cudb[0].esm_valid;
> >> +out:
> >> + spin_unlock_irq(&chsc_page_lock);
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(chsc_scud);
>
FWIW,
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
