linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

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: <20111129151607.GE30966@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:16:07 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:31:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> >> Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
> >> references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
> >> with SMP support, virtio is only using SMP barriers in order to
> >> avoid incurring the overhead involved with mandatory barriers.
> >>
> >> Lately, though, virtio is being increasingly used with inter-processor
> >> communication scenarios too, which involve running two (separate)
> >> instances of operating systems on two (separate) processors, each of
> >> which might either be UP or SMP.
> >
> > Is that using virtio-mmio?
> 
> No, I'm using this:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/25/139

This mentions iommu - is there a need to use dma api to let
the firmware acess the rings? Or does it have access to all
of memory?

> > Sorry, could you pls explain what are 'two external processors'?
> > I think I know that if two x86 CPUs in an SMP system run kernels built
> > in an SMP configuration, smp_*mb barriers are enough.
> 
> Sure:
> 
> My setup is not SMP-based; it's two separate processors running in AMP
> configuration. The processors have completely different architectures,
> are not cache coherent, and only simply share some memory, which is
> used for communications using virtio as the shared memory "wire"
> protocol (i.e. we're not even doing virtualization: we have Linux on
> one processor, and some RTOS on another processor, and they use virtio
> to send and receive buffers).

I'd like to make sure I understand the memory model some more.
Is there cache snooping? If yes access from an external device
typically works mostly in the same way as smp ...


> So it's not SMP effects we're controlling; we're pretty much doing
> MMIO and must use mandatory barriers

So you put virtio rings in MMIO memory?

> (otherwise we see breakage).

Could you please give a couple of examples of breakage?

-- 
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/