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  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]
Date:	Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:49:36 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	avi@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] kvm: KVM_EOIFD, an eventfd for EOIs

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:06:42PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 19:12 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 03:36 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:26:31PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 03:01 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > You keep saying this but it is still true: once irqfd
> > > > > is closed eoifd does not get any more interrupts.
> > > > 
> > > > How does that matter?
> > > 
> > > Well if it does not get events it is disabled.
> > > so you have one ifc disabling another, anyway.
> > 
> > And a level irqfd without an eoifd can never be de-asserted.  Either we
> > make modular components, assemble them to do useful work, and
> > disassemble them independently so they can be used by future interfaces
> > or we bundle eoifd as just an option of irqfd.  Which is it gonna be?
> 
> I don't think I've been successful at explaining my reasoning for making
> EOI notification a separate interface, so let me try again...
> 
> When kvm is not enabled, the qemu vfio driver still needs to know about
> EOIs to re-enable the physical interrupt.  Since the ioapic is emulated
> in qemu, we can setup a notifier for this and create abstraction to make
> it non-x86 specific, etc.  We just need to come up with a design and
> implement it.  But what happens when kvm is then enabled?  ioapic
> emulation moves to the kernel (assume kvm includes irqchip for this
> argument even though it doesn't for POWER), qemu no longer knows about
> EOIs, and the interface we just created to handle the non-kvm case stops
> working.  Is anyone going to accept adding a qemu EOI notification
> interface that only works when kvm is not enabled?

Yes, it's only a question of abstracting it at the right level.

For example, if as you suggest below kvm gives you an eventfd that
asserts an irq, laters automatically deasserts it and notifies another
eventfd, we can do exactly this in both tcg and kvm:

setup_level_irq(int gsi, int assert_eventfd, int deassert_eventfd)

Not advocating this interface but pointing out that to make
same abstraction to work in tcg and kvm, see what it does in
each of them first.

> I suspect we therefore need a notification mechanism between kvm and
> qemu to make it possible for that interface to continue working.

Even though no one is actually using it. IMHO, this is a maintainance
problem.

> An
> eventfd also seems like the right mechanism there.  A simple
> modification to the proposed KVM_EOIFD here would allow it to trigger an
> eventfd when an EOI is written to a specific gsi on
> KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID (define a flag and pass gsi in place of
> key).
> 
> The split proposed here does require some assembly, but KVM_EOIFD is
> re-usable as either a de-assert and notify mechanism tied to an irqfd or
> a notify-only mechanism allowing users of a qemu EOI notification
> infrastructure to continue working.  vfio doesn't necessarily need this
> middle ground, but can easily be used to test it.
> 
> The alternative is that we pull eoifd into KVM_IRQFD and invent some
> other new EOI interface for qemu.  That means we get EOIs tied to an
> irqfd via one path and other EOIs via another ioctl.  Personally that
> seems less desirable, but I'm willing to explore that route if
> necessary.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex

Maybe we should focus on the fact that we notify userspace that we
deasserted interrupt instead of EOI.

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists