Re: [PATCH v10 03/26] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization

[Cornelia Huck]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 19:18:57 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 09/12/2018 03:42 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> > From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > This patch refactors the code that initializes and sets up the
> > crypto configuration for a guest. The following changes are
> > implemented via this patch:
> > 
> > 1. Prior to the introduction of AP device virtualization, it
> >     was not necessary to provide guest access to the CRYCB
> >     unless the MSA extension 3 (MSAX3) facility was installed
> >     on the host system. With the introduction of AP device
> >     virtualization, the CRYCB must be made accessible to the
> >     guest if the AP instructions are installed on the host
> >     and are to be provided to the guest.
> > 
> > 2. Introduces a flag indicating AP instructions executed on
> >     the guest shall be interpreted by the firmware. It is
> >     initialized to indicate AP instructions are to be
> >     to be interpreted and is used to set the SIE bit for
> >     each vcpu during vcpu setup.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h |    2 +
> >   arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |    1 +
> >   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         |   71 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >   3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

(...)

> The fixup! patch below modifies this patch (03/26) to illustrate how
> 
> David's recommendation will be implemented for v11 of the series. It
> 
> is one of three fixup! patches (the other two are in responses to
> 11/26
>   and 25/26) included to generate discussion in v10 rather than
> 
> waiting until v11 for comments.

(...)

Looks good to me.