linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI interrupts

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: <4FCC9EAC.9090007@siemens.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:40:28 +0200
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yongjie.ren@...el.com" <yongjie.ren@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI interrupts

On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 
>> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API?  Thanks,
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
>>> necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
>>> like have to be handled that conservatively, but maybe I'm missing some
>>> detail.
>>>
>>
>> btw, I'm hoping we can unthread assigned MSIs.  If the delivery is
>> unicast, we can precalculate everything and all the handler has to do is
>> set the IRR, KVM_REQ_EVENT, and kick the vcpu.  All of these can be done
>> from interrupt context with just RCU locking.
> 
> There is really no need to run MSI/MSI-X interrupts threaded for
> KVM. I'm running the patch below for quite some time and it works like
> a charm.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> ----
> Index: linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> +++ linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSI
> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi(int irq, void *dev_id)
> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
>  
> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
>  #endif
>  
>  #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSIX
> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix(int irq, void *dev_id)
> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
>  	int index = find_index_from_host_irq(assigned_dev, irq);
> @@ -346,9 +346,8 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
>  	}
>  
>  	dev->host_irq = dev->dev->irq;
> -	if (request_threaded_irq(dev->host_irq, NULL,
> -				 kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi, 0,
> -				 dev->irq_name, dev)) {
> +	if (request_irq(dev->host_irq, kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler, 0,
> +			dev->irq_name, dev)) {
>  		pci_disable_msi(dev->dev);
>  		return -EIO;
>  	}
> @@ -373,9 +372,9 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
>  		return r;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < dev->entries_nr; i++) {
> -		r = request_threaded_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
> -					 NULL, kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix,
> -					 0, dev->irq_name, dev);
> +		r = request_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
> +				kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler, 0,
> +				dev->irq_name, dev);
>  		if (r)
>  			goto err;
>  	}

This may work in practice but has two conceptual problems:
 - we do not want to run a potential broadcast to all VCPUs to run in
   a host IRQ handler
 - crazy user space could have configured the route to end up in the
   PIC or IOAPIC, and both are not hard-IRQ safe (this should probably
   be caught on setup)

So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
MSI/MSI-X vector.


Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI handlers
of all devices really need to apply IRQF_ONESHOT though they should have
no use for it.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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/