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]
Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 15:50:52 +0100
From:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>,
	Feng Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>, Chien Yen <chien.yen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver load
 first time

On Mon, 13 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:06:43PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:18:24PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> > > > When driver load and unload in a loop, pirq will exhaust finally.
> > > > Try to use the same pirq which was already mapped and binded at first time
> > > 
> > > So what happens if I unload and reload two drivers in random order?
> > > 
> > > > when driver loaded.
> > > > 
> > > > Read pirq from msix entry and test if data is XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA
> > > > xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) < 0 checking is wrong as irq will be freed
> > > > when driver unload, it's always true in second load.
> > > 
> > > If my understanding is right the issue at hand is that the caching
> > > information about the pirq disappears once the driver has been
> > > unloaded b/c the event's irq-info is removed (as the driver is
> > > unloaded and free_irq is called).
> > > 
> > > Stefano,
> > > Is there a specific write to the MSI structure that would cause the
> > > hypervisor to drop the PIRQ? Or a nice hypercall to "free" an
> > > PIRQ in usage?
> > 
> > We already have a "free PIRQ" hypercall, it's called
> > PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq and should be called by QEMU.
> 
> Considering that we call function that allocates (PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq)
> it in the Linux kernel (and not in QEMU), perhaps that should be done in the
> Linux kernel as part of xen_destroy_irq()? Or would that confuse QEMU?

I think it would confuse QEMU. It is probably better to let the unmap
being handled by it.


> It looks like QEMU only does that hypercall (via xc_physdev_unmap_pirq)
> unregister_real_device which is only called during pci unplug?

You are right! I would think that this behaviour is erroneous unless it
was done on purpose to avoid allocating MSIs twice.
If that is the case we would need to do something similar in Linux too.

I think that the issue is the mismatch between QEMU's and Linux's
behaviours: either both should be allocating MSIs once, or they should
both be allocating and deallocating MSIs every time the driver is loaded
and unloaded.


> > Linux should disable the MSI bit in the PCI config options of the
> > device:
> > 
> > pci_disable_msi -> pci_msi_shutdown -> msi_set_enable(0)
> 
> Zhenzhong, does it do that? Looking at the driver it certainly seems that way.
> > 
> > That should cause QEMU to issue a xc_physdev_unmap_pirq that actually
> > unmaps the pirq. If it doesn't, it's a bug :)
> 
> <sigh> It doesn't do that. So two bugs:
>  - QEMU doing that
>  - Linux kernel doing the hypercall as well.

At first sight I also thought that the Linux kernel was issuing
PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq too but actually Linux is only doing it if
xen_initial_domain().
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ