linux-kernel - Re: [v3 23/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU is preempted

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:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:32:29 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 23/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
 is preempted



On 18/12/2014 04:15, Wu, Feng wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Paolo!
> 
> If we use u64 new_control, we cannot use new.sn any more.
> Maybe we can change the struct pi_desc {} like this:
> 
> typedef struct pid_control{
>         u64     on      : 1,
>         sn      : 1,
>         rsvd_1  : 13,
>         ndm     : 1,
>         nv      : 8,
>         rsvd_2  : 8,
>         ndst    : 32;
> }pid_control_t;
> 
> struct pi_desc {
>         u32 pir[8];     /* Posted interrupt requested */
> 		pid_control_t control;

Probably something like this to keep the union:

typedef union pid_control {
	u64 full;
	struct {
		u64 on : 1,
		...
	} fields;
};

>         u32 rsvd[6];
> } __aligned(64);
> 
> 
> Then we can define pid_control_t new_control, old_control. And use new_control.sn = 0.
> 
> What is your opinon?

Sure.  Alternatively, keep using struct pi_desc new; just
do not zero it, nor access any field outide the control word.

Paolo

--
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/