linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: Add Intel XXV710 to hidden INTx devices

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, 8 Jun 2017 07:06:09 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Stefan Assmann <sassmann@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: Add Intel XXV710 to hidden INTx devices

[+linux-pci]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 01:00:17 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:01:46PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > XXV710 has the same broken INTx behavior as the rest of the X/XL710
> > series, the interrupt status register is not wired to report pending
> > INTx interrupts, thus we never associate the interrupt to the device.
> > Extend the device IDs to include these so that we hide that the
> > device supports INTx at all to the user.  
> 
> Is vfio really the right place for the list?  Shouldn't this be
> keyed off the core PCI quirk for these devices?

I sent a separate patch to add these devices to the regular broken INTx
quirk in pci-core:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg61971.html

We don't currently have a device flag to specify that INTx is broken in
this particular way that vfio can work around, nor do I really know how
other drivers might make use of this info.  If I'm wrong, then
certainly let's make a common way to do this, but this patch is just a
trivial extension to an existing mechanism.  Thanks,

Alex