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]

Message-ID: <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00230A86A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:09:54 +0000
From:	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [v3 23/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
 is preempted



> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Bonzini
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:32 PM
> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
> 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

Yes, this is also a good idea. Thanks!

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> --
> 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/
--
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/