linux-kernel - RE: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:23:09 +0300
From:	"Or Sagi" <ors@...is.com>
To:	"'Dor Laor'" <dor.laor@...ranet.com>,
	"'Alan Cox'" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	<kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.


> Hope it should work like the following [Please correct me if I'm
> wrong]:
> - Make the device the last irqaction in the list
> - Our dummy handler will always return IRQ_HANDLED in case any other
> previous
>   irqaction did not return such. It will also issue the timer and mask
> the irq in this case.
>   The line is temporarily jammed but not disabled - note_interrupt()
> will not consider
>   our irq unhandled and won't disable it.
>   btw, if I'm not mistaken only after bad 99900/100000 the irq is
> disabled.
> - If the timer pops before the guest acks the irq, the timer handler
> will
>   ack the irq and unmask it. The timer's job is only to prevent
> deadlocks.
> 
> Maybe it's better to code it first then send RFC.

Definitely. We've already agreed that it's correct for the (rare, 
unfortunately) non shared scenario. Let's see how much do we have to bend 
reality to fit once it's in code form.

-- Ors.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/