linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver load first time

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:	Wed, 22 May 2013 10:37:39 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"Chien Yen" <chien.yen@...cle.com>,
	"Feng Jin" <joe.jin@...cle.com>,
	"Yuval Shaia" <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>,
	"Zhenzhong Duan" <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated
 when driver load first time

>>> On 22.05.13 at 00:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:50:09PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> We have to be careful about this: the point of PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq is
>> that Linux can know for sure the pirq that is going to be used to map the
>> MSI by QEMU. If you modify is_free_pirq that way, suddenly the pirq
>> could be allocated for something else after Linux called
>> PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq and before QEMU called xc_physdev_map_pirq_msi.
> 
> Yes. And I think the 'is_free_pirq' modification above is incorrect.
> 
> I think the fix should be in the unmap_pirq code (hypervisor) to check
> if the arch.irq is either zero or PIRQ_ALLOCATED. Right now it only
> checks for zero.

Which check are you talking about? Looking at physdev_unmap_pirq()
I see none at all, unmap_domain_pirq() has a <= 0 check, and
unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq() again doesn't appear to have any.

If you're talking about unmap_domain_pirq(), then you'll need to
be careful: A negative value here doesn't necessarily mean
PIRQ_ALLOCATED, but could also come from another run that
found it necessary to force the unbind. Hence the definition of
PIRQ_ALLOCATED would then collide with the (unlikely?) case of
IRQ1 having got assigned to a guest. To be on the safe side, we
should therefore redefine PIRQ_ALLOCATED to say INT_MIN.

Jan

--
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/