search for: boeblingen

...The ChangeLog contains 20030429 [...] - (djm) Fix blibpath specification for AIX/gcc [...] which I suspect to be the cause for what I'm seeing. Could anybody please comment? TIA, Markus P.S.: Please copy me on your replies, as I'm not subscribed to the list. -- Markus Alt IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany altmark at de.ibm.com

...} + + if (is_prot_virt_guest() && + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) + return -EIO; + /* Give virtio_ring a chance to accept features. */ vring_transport_features(vdev); Thanks, Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

...} + + if (is_prot_virt_guest() && + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) + return -EIO; + /* Give virtio_ring a chance to accept features. */ vring_transport_features(vdev); Thanks, Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

..._F_VERSION_1, not after? > > But it's only available with VERSION_1 anyway, isn't it? So it probably > also needs to fail when this feature is needed if VERSION_1 has not been > negotiated, I think. > Yes, clearly, I will add this. Thanks, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

..._F_VERSION_1, not after? > > But it's only available with VERSION_1 anyway, isn't it? So it probably > also needs to fail when this feature is needed if VERSION_1 has not been > negotiated, I think. > Yes, clearly, I will add this. Thanks, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:44:36 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > An architecture may need to validate the VIRTIO devices features > based on architecture specificities. s/specifities/specifics/ > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:44:36 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > An architecture may need to validate the VIRTIO devices features > based on architecture specificities. s/specifities/specifics/ > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >

...ess" ? > > But no issue with keeping the current message. > If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to accept or not the device. The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch specific. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

...ess" ? > > But no issue with keeping the current message. > If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to accept or not the device. The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch specific. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:16:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/7/15 ??5:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:31:09AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are > > > not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been > > > negotiated. Use the new

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 06:16:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/7/15 ??5:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:31:09AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are > > > not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been > > > negotiated. Use the new

On 2020/6/12 ??7:38, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 2020-06-12 11:21, Pierre Morel wrote: >> >> >> On 2020-06-11 05:10, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> On 2020/6/10 ??9:11, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>> Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and >>>> do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. >>>>

On 2020/6/12 ??7:38, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 2020-06-12 11:21, Pierre Morel wrote: >> >> >> On 2020-06-11 05:10, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> On 2020/6/10 ??9:11, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>> Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and >>>> do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. >>>>

...ble that the architecture would overwrite if needed but I find the weak function solution more flexible. With a function, we also have the possibility to provide the device as argument and take actions depending it, this may answer Halil's concern. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

...ble that the architecture would overwrite if needed but I find the weak function solution more flexible. With a function, we also have the possibility to provide the device as argument and take actions depending it, this may answer Halil's concern. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote: > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the > use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. > > Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices > without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote: > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the > use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. > > Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices > without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre

Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU protected access. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> --- drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU protected access. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> --- drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:39:19 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are > not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been > negotiated. Use the new arch_validate_virtio_features() interface to > fail probe if that's not the case, preventing a host error on access > attempt