linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V6 1/5] kvm hypervisor : Add a hypercall to KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks

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: <20120429135227.GC15413@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:52:27 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	X86 <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Xen <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 1/5] kvm hypervisor : Add a hypercall to KVM
 hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:26:21PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/29/2012 04:20 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > This is too similar to kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(). Why not reuse it. We
> > > > can use one of reserved delivery modes as PV delivery mode. We will
> > > > disallow guest to trigger it through apic interface, so this will not be
> > > > part of ABI and can be changed at will.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I'm not thrilled about this.  Those delivery modes will eventually
> > > become unreserved.  We can have a kvm_lookup_apic_id() that is shared
> > > among implementations.
> > > 
> > This is only internal implementation. If they become unreserved we will
> > use something else.
> >
> 
> Yeah, I'm thinking of that time.  Why do something temporary and fragile?
> 
Why is it fragile? Just by unreserving the value Intel will not break
KVM. Only when KVM will implement apic feature that unreserves the value
we will have to change internal implementation and use another value,
but this will be done by the same patch that does unreserving. The
unreserving may even never happen. Meanwhile kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic()
will likely be optimized to use hash for unicast delivery and unhalt
hypercall will benefit from it immediately.

--
			Gleb.
--
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/