linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: nVMX: Enable nested posted interrupt processing.

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:	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:54:07 +0800
From:	Wincy Van <fanwenyi0529@...il.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	gleb@...nel.org, yang.z.zhang@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: nVMX: Enable nested posted interrupt processing.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Hence, we can disable local interrupts while delivering nested posted
>> interrupts to make sure
>> we are faster than the destination vcpu. This is a bit tricky but it
>> an avoid that race. I think we
>> do not need to add a spin lock here. RCU does not fit this case, since
>> it will introduce a
>> new race window between the rcu handler and handle_vmptr**.
>>
>> I am wondering that whether there is a better way : )
>
> Why not just use a spinlock?
>

Hmm.. it seems that using a spinlock is the best way.
I think we can drop the local_irq_save and use a spinlock instead.
I can send v2 if it is necessary, any more ideas?


Thanks,

Wincy
--
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/