linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself

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]

Message-Id: <201005191709.16401.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 17:09:15 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself

On Wed, 12 May 2010 04:57:22 am Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/07/2010 06:23 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:30:00 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
> >    
> >> On 05/05/2010 11:58 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>      
> >>> +	/* We publish the last-seen used index at the end of the available ring.
> >>> +	 * It is at the end for backwards compatibility. */
> >>> +	vr->last_used_idx =&(vr)->avail->ring[num];
> >>> +	/* Verify that last used index does not spill over the used ring. */
> >>> +	BUG_ON((void *)vr->last_used_idx +
> >>> +	       sizeof *vr->last_used_idx>   (void *)vr->used);
> >>>    }
> >>>
> >>>        
> >> Shouldn't this be on its own cache line?
> >>      
> > It's next to the available ring; because that's where the guest publishes
> > its data.  That whole page is guest-write, host-read.
> >
> > Putting it on a cacheline by itself would be a slight pessimization; the host
> > cpu would have to get the last_used_idx cacheline and the avail descriptor
> > cacheline every time.  This way, they are sometimes the same cacheline.
> 
> If one peer writes the tail of the available ring, while the other reads 
> last_used_idx, it's a false bounce, no?

I think we're talking about the last 2 entries of the avail ring.  That means
the worst case is 1 false bounce every time around the ring.  I think that's
why we're debating it instead of measuring it :)

Note that this is a exclusive->shared->exclusive bounce only, too.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/