linux-kernel - Re: [KVM-RFC PATCH 1/2] eventfd: add an explicit srcu based notifier interface

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:54:00 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
	davidel@...ilserver.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [KVM-RFC PATCH 1/2] eventfd: add an explicit srcu based
	notifier interface

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:17:22PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstand what iosignalfd is - isn't it true that you get eventfd
> > and kvm will signal that when guest performs io write to a specific
> > address, and then drivers can get eventfd and poll it to detect
> > these writes?
> >   
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > If yes, you have no way to know that the other end of eventfd
> > is connected to kvm, so you don't know you can access current->mm.
> >   
> 
> Well, my intended use for them *does* know its connected to KVM. 

How does it know? You get a file descriptor and you even figure out it's an
eventfd. Now what? Any process can write there.

> Perhaps there will be others that do not in the future, but like I said
> it could be addressed as those actually arise.
> 
> 
> >   
> >> So since I cannot use it accurately for the hardirq/threaded-irq type
> >> case, and I don't actually need it for the iosignalfd case, I am not
> >> sure its the right direction (at least for now).  I do think it might
> >> have merit for syscal/vmexit uses outside of iosignalfd, but I do not
> >> see a current use-case for it so perhaps it can wait until one arises.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >>     
> >
> > But, it addresses the CONFIG_PREEMPT off case, which your design doesn't
> > seem to.
> >   
> 
> Well, the problem is that it only addresses it partially in a limited
> set of circumstances, and doesn't address the broader problem.  I'll
> give you an example:
> 
> (First off, lets assume that we are not going to have
> eventfd_signal_task(), but rather eventfd_signal() with two option
> flags: EVENTFD_SIGNAL_CANSLEEP, and EVENTFD_SIGNAL_CURRENTVALID
> 
> Today vbus-enet has a rx-thread and a tx-thread at least partially
> because I need process-context to do the copy_to_user(other->mm) type
> stuff (and we will need similar for our virtio-net backend as well).  I
> also utilize irqfd to do interrupt injection.  Now, since I know that I
> have kthread_context, I could modify vbus-enet to inject interrupts with
> EVENTFD_SIGNAL_CANSLEEP set, and this is fine.  I know that is safe.
> 
> However, the problem is above that!  I would like to optimize out the
> tx-thread to begin with with a similar "can_sleep()" pattern whenever
> possible.
> 
> For instance, if the netif stack calls me to do a transmit and it
> happens to be in a sleepable context, it would be nice to just skip
> waking up the tx-thread.  I would therefore just do the
> copy_to_user(other->mm) + irqfd directly in the netif callback, thereby
> skipping the context switch.

What do you mean by copy_to_user(other->mm) here?  If you are going to switch
to another mm, then I think current->mm must be valid (I think it's not enough
that you can sleep). So preemptible() might not be enough.

-- 
MST
--
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/