mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
To: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
	Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:52:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bf1c79cc-2108-ceb0-4f0a-d83386046f00@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yt9dmtjtcaws.fsf@linux.ibm.com>

On 1/18/22 16:37, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Hi Janis,
> 
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> KVM needs a mechanism to do accesses to guest memory that honor
>> storage key protection.
>> Since the copy_to/from_user implementation makes use of move
>> instructions that support having an additional access key supplied,
>> we can implement __copy_from/to_user_with_key by enhancing the
>> existing implementation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> This doesn't apply to my master branch.

Maybe it's due to the prerequisite patch missing?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/YeGBmPBJ8NMi0Rkp@osiris/T/#t

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c b/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
>> index d3a700385875..ce7a150dd93a 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/lib/uaccess.c
>> @@ -59,11 +59,13 @@ static inline int copy_with_mvcos(void)
>>  #endif
>>  
>>  static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcos(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
>> -						 unsigned long size)
>> +						 unsigned long size, char key)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long tmp1, tmp2;
>>  	union oac spec = {
>> +		.oac2.key = key,
>>  		.oac2.as = PSW_BITS_AS_SECONDARY,
>> +		.oac2.k = 1,
>>  		.oac2.a = 1,
>>  	};
>>  
>> @@ -94,19 +96,19 @@ static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcos(void *x, const void __user *ptr
>>  }
>>  
>>  static inline unsigned long copy_from_user_mvcp(void *x, const void __user *ptr,
>> -						unsigned long size)
>> +						unsigned long size, char key)
> 
> Any special reason for using 'char' as type for key here? Given the left shift
> below i would prefer 'unsigned char' to avoid having to think about
> whether this can overflow. The end result wouldn't look different,
> so more or less a cosmetic issue.

Will do.

[...]
> 
> With that minor nitpick:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>

Thanks!


  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-18 15:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-18  9:52 [RFC PATCH v1 00/10] KVM: s390: Do storage key checking Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 13:18   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-18 15:37   ` Sven Schnelle
2022-01-18 15:52     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch [this message]
2022-01-19  9:48   ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-19 11:02     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 13:20       ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20  8:34         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 12:56           ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 18:19             ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21  7:32               ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-21 11:04                 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21 13:46                   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 14:26                     ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-24 10:38                       ` [RFC PATCH] uaccess: Add mechanism for " Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-24 17:41                         ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-25 12:35                           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 13:23                             ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/10] KVM: s390: Honor storage keys when accessing guest memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 14:38   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-20 10:27     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 10:30       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 19:27   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20  8:11     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20  8:50       ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20  8:58         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20  9:06           ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/10] KVM: s390: handle_tprot: Honor storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test TEST PROTECTION emulation Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 15:40   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-21 11:03     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 12:28       ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-21 13:50         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/10] KVM: s390: Add optional storage key checking to MEMOP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 11:51   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 11:52   ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 12:46     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-19 12:53       ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 13:17         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 10:38   ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-20 11:20     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 12:23     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 12:00       ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-27 16:29         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-27 17:34           ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/10] KVM: s390: Rename existing vcpu memop functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test memops with storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/10] KVM: s390: Add capability for storage key extension of MEM_OP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 15:12   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Make use of capability in MEM_OP test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bf1c79cc-2108-ceb0-4f0a-d83386046f00@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nrb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome