[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto adapters
On 16/11/2017 16:23, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400
>> Tony Krowiak <> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2017 01:38 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> Ping
>>>> Tony Krowiak (19):
>>>>     KVM: s390: SIE considerations for AP Queue virtualization
>>>>     KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: new AP matrix bus
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: create an AP matrix device on the AP matrix bus
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: base implementation of AP matrix device driver
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: register matrix device with VFIO mediated device
>>>>       framework
>>>>     KVM: s390: introduce AP matrix configuration interface
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: support for assigning adapters to matrix mdev
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: validate adapter assignment
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: sysfs interfaces supporting AP domain assignment
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: validate domain assignment
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: sysfs support for control domain assignment
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: validate control domain assignment
>>>>     KVM: s390: Connect the AP mediated matrix device to KVM
>>>>     s390/zcrypt: introduce ioctl access to VFIO AP Matrix driver
>>>>     KVM: s390: interface to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
>>>>     KVM: s390: validate input to AP matrix config interface
>>>>     KVM: s390: New ioctl to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
>>>>     s390/facilities: enable AP facilities needed by guest
>> I think the approach is fine, and the code also looks fine for the most
>> part. Some comments:
>> - various patches can be squashed together to give a better
>>    understanding at a glance
> Which patches would you squash?
>> - this needs documentation (as I already said)
> My plan is to take the cover letter patch and incorporate that into
> documentation,
> then replace the cover letter patch with a more concise summary.
>> - some of the driver/device modelling feels a bit awkward (commented in
>>    patches) -- I'm not sure that my proposal is better, but I think we
>>    should make sure the interdependencies are modeled correctly
> I am responding to each patch review individually.

I think that instead of responding to each patch individually we should
have a discussion on the design because I think a lot could change and
discussing about each patch as they may be completely redesigned for the
next version may not be very useful.

So I totally agree with Conny on that we should stabilize the
bus/device/driver modeling.

I think it would be here a good place to start the discussion on things
like we started to discuss, Harald and I, off-line:
- why a matrix bus, in which case we can avoid it
- which kind of devices we need
- how to handle the repartition of queues on boot, reset and hotplug
- interaction with the host drivers
- validation of the matrix for guests and host views

or even features we need to add like
- interruptions
- PAPQ/TAPQ-t and APQI interception
- virtualization of the AP
- CPU model and KVM capabilities

In my understanding these points must be cleared before we really start
to discuss the details of the implementation.

Best regards,


>> - some minor stuff

Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:17    [W:0.128 / U:2.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site