linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern

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: <1381040386.645.143.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:19:46 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Andy King <acking@...are.com>, Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux390@...ibm.com,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@...com,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-driver@...gic.com,
	Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement
 pattern

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:02 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 08:46:26AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 16:20 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > So my point is - drivers should first obtain a number of MSIs they *can*
> > > get, then *derive* a number of MSIs the device is fine with and only then
> > > request that number. Not terribly different from memory or any other type
> > > of resource allocation ;)
> > 
> > What if the limit is for a group of devices ? Your interface is racy in
> > that case, another driver could have eaten into the limit in between the
> > calls.
> 
> Well, the another driver has had a better karma ;) But seriously, the
> current scheme with a loop is not race-safe wrt to any other type of
> resource which might exhaust. What makes the quota so special so we
> should care about it and should not care i.e. about lack of msi_desc's?

I'm not saying the current scheme is better but I prefer the option of
passing a min,max to the request function.

> Yeah, I know the quota might hit more likely. But why it is not addressed
> right now then? Not a single function in chains...
>   rtas_msi_check_device() -> msi_quota_for_device() -> traverse_pci_devices()
>   rtas_setup_msi_irqs() -> msi_quota_for_device() -> traverse_pci_devices()
> ...is race-safe. So if it has not been bothering anyone until now then 
> no reason to start worrying now :)
>
> In fact, in the current design to address the quota race decently the
> drivers would have to protect the *loop* to prevent the quota change
> between a pci_enable_msix() returned a positive number and the the next
> call to pci_enable_msix() with that number. Is it doable?

I am not advocating for the current design, simply saying that your
proposal doesn't address this issue while Ben's does.

Cheers,
Ben.

> > Ben.
> > 
> > 
> 


--
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/