lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access
From
On 18/01/2022 10.52, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Channel I/O honors storage keys and is performed on absolute memory.
> For I/O emulation user space therefore needs to be able to do key
> checked accesses.
> The vm IOCTL supports read/write accesses, as well as checking
> if an access would succeed.
...
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index e3f450b2f346..dd04170287fd 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -572,6 +572,8 @@ struct kvm_s390_mem_op {
> #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_LOGICAL_WRITE 1
> #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ 2
> #define KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE 3
> +#define KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ 4
> +#define KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_WRITE 5

Not quite sure about this - maybe it is, but at least I'd like to see this
discussed: Do we really want to re-use the same ioctl layout for both, the
VM and the VCPU file handles? Where the userspace developer has to know that
the *_ABSOLUTE_* ops only work with VM handles, and the others only work
with the VCPU handles? A CPU can also address absolute memory, so why not
adding the *_ABSOLUTE_* ops there, too? And if we'd do that, wouldn't it be
sufficient to have the VCPU ioctls only - or do you want to call these
ioctls from spots in QEMU where you do not have a VCPU handle available?
(I/O instructions are triggered from a CPU, so I'd assume that you should
have a VCPU handle around?)

Thomas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-20 11:39    [W:0.268 / U:1.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site