| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110617171226.GB19693@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:12:26 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Micha Nelissen <micha@...i.hopto.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki)" <venki@...gle.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
Sorry, I missed this the first time through ... I've just been poked about it.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:55:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > +static int __assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > +{
> > + static int current_vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR;
>
> static ? What the hell is this for ?
You should probably have taken a look at __assign_irq_vector before
jumping in with the 'wth's. It's heavily based on that.
> > + unsigned int old_vector;
> > + unsigned i, cpu;
> > + int err;
> > + struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> > + cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(irq + count > NR_IRQS);
>
> Why BUG if you can bail out with an error code ?
>
> > + BUG_ON(count & (count - 1));
>
> Ditto
These should both have been taken care of by the caller. So they are
genuine bugs if they happen.
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > + cfg = irq_cfg(irq + i);
> > + if (cfg->move_in_progress)
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
>
> What's this check for and why do we return EBUSY ?
Ask the author of __assign_irq_vector
> > + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> No way. We went great length to make this code do GFP_KERNEL
> allocations.
No. No, you didn't. Fix __assign_irq_vector, and we can talk.
> > + cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> > + old_vector = cfg->vector;
> > + if (old_vector) {
> > + err = 0;
> > + cpumask_and(tmp_mask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > + cpumask_and(tmp_mask, cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> > + if (!cpumask_empty(tmp_mask))
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Only try and allocate irqs on cpus that are present */
> > + err = -ENOSPC;
> > + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask) {
>
> No, we don't want to iterate over the world and some more with
> vector_lock held and interrupts disabled
... see __assign_irq_vector again.
> > + int new_cpu;
> > + int vector;
> > +
> > + apic->vector_allocation_domain(cpu, tmp_mask);
> > +
> > + vector = current_vector & ~(count - 1);
> > +next:
> > + vector > += count;
> > + if (vector > + count >= first_system_vector) {
> > + vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR & ~(count - 1);
> > + if (vector < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR)
> > + vector > += count;
> > + }
> > + if (unlikely((current_vector & ~(count - 1)) == vector))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +)
> > + if (test_bit(vector > + i, used_vectors))
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> > + if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector > + i] != -1)
> > + goto next;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Yikes, loop in a loop ??? With interrupts disabled? Imagine what that
> means on a machine with 1k cores.
It's a very short inner loop. MSI is limited to 32 interrupts.
> > + /* Found one! */
> > + current_vector = vector > + count - 1;
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> > + cfg = irq_cfg(irq > + i);
> > + if (old_vector) {
> > + cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
> > + cpumask_copy(cfg->old_domain, cfg->domain);
> > + }
> > + for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
> > + per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector + i] = irq + i;
>
> And some more .....
>
> > + cfg->vector = vector > + i;
> > + cpumask_copy(cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> > + }
> > + err = 0;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +out:
> > + free_cpumask_var(tmp_mask);
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
>
> > +/* Assumes that count is a power of two and aligns to that power of two */
>
> If it assumes that, it'd better check it
Um ... see the BUG_ON above that you complained about ...
> @@ -3121,7 +3272,7 @@ void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq)
> */
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI
> static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
> - struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
> + unsigned count, struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
> {
> struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> int err;
> @@ -3131,7 +3282,10 @@ static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
> return -ENXIO;
>
> cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> - err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
> + if (count == 1)
> + err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
> + else
> + err = assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, apic->target_cpus());
>
> WTF? We have already changed the function to take a count argument,
> why don't we propagate that all the way through instead of having
>
> if (bla == 1)
> assign_irq_vector();
> else
> assign_irq_vector_block();
>
> all over the place ?
assign_irq_vector() has a different allocation scheme from
assign_irq_vector_block(). Merging the two functions seems hard ... but
maybe we can have separate __assign_irq_block() and __assign_irq_vector()
and have assign_irq_vector() call the appropriate one?
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists