lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 07/22] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
From
Date
On 08/20/2018 04:41 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> + if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca |= ECA_APIE;
>>>>
>>>> - vcpu->arch.sie_block->crycbd = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd;
>>>> + /* If MSAX3 is installed on the guest, set up protected key support */
>>>> + if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 76)) {
>>>> + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.aes_kw)
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb3 |= ECB3_AES;
>>>> + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.dea_kw)
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb3 |= ECB3_DEA;
>>>> + }
>>> As the feature can never change, and aes_kw/dea_kw are only set to 1 in
>>> case we have test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 76), this change is not needed.
>>>
>>> I think this function can be pretty much left alone. Just add the
>>> KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP handling.
>> I disagree, what about the case where the KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP is
>> configured for the guest but the MSAX3 facility (76) is not?
> Then aes_kw/dea_kw can never be set.
>
> kvm_s390_vm_set_crypto() and kvm_s390_crypto_init() correctly test for
> facility 76.
>
> Or am I missing a case?

I stand corrected, you are right. I'll remove the test.

>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void kvm_s390_vcpu_unsetup_cmma(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-21 15:30    [W:0.110 / U:0.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site