similar to: [PATCH v5 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: 1) I kept removed the ack from Jason as I reworked the patch @Jason, the nature and goal of the patch did not really changed please can I get back your acked-by with these changes? 2) Rewording for warning messages Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2):

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: 1) I kept removed the ack from Jason as I reworked the patch @Jason, the nature and goal of the patch did not really changed please can I get back your acked-by with these changes? 2) Rewording for warning messages Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2):

Hi all, I changed the patch subject to reflect the content, becoming more general. 1) I removed the ack from Christian and Jason even far as I understand they gave it for the functionality more than for the implementation. @Jason, @Christian, please can I get back your acked-by with these changes? 2) previous patch had another name: [PATCH v3 0/1] s390: virtio: let arch choose to

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

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

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. Pierre Morel (1): s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature arch/s390/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++

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. Pierre Morel (1): s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature arch/s390/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++

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 +++++++++++++++++++ >

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: I use the original idea from Connie for an optional arch_has_restricted_memory_access. I renamed the callback accordingly, added the definition of ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_MEMORY_ACCESS inside the VIRTIO Kconfig and the selection in the PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST config

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: The tests are back to virtio_finalize_features. No more argument for the architecture callback which only reports if the architecture needs guest memory access restrictions for VIRTIO. I renamed the callback to arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access, and the config

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. I changed VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM to VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM I forgot in drivers/virtio/Kconfig, and put back the inclusion of virtio_config.h for the definition of the callback in arch/s390/mm/init.c I wrongly removed in the last series. Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2): virtio: let

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. I changed VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM to VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM I forgot in drivers/virtio/Kconfig, and put back the inclusion of virtio_config.h for the definition of the callback in arch/s390/mm/init.c I wrongly removed in the last series. Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2): virtio: let

On 15.06.20 14:39, 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 Morel <pmorel at

On 15.06.20 14:39, 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 Morel <pmorel at

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:39:24 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: I find the subject (commit short) sub optimal. The 'arch' is already accepting devices 'without IOMMU feature'. What you are introducing is the ability to reject. > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:39:24 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: I find the subject (commit short) sub optimal. The 'arch' is already accepting devices 'without IOMMU feature'. What you are introducing is the ability to reject. > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device

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

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