linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control

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:	Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:20 +0200
From:	Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, eric.auger@...com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
	marc.zyngier@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
	avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, feng.wu@...el.com,
	joro@...tes.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control

Hi Paolo,
On 07/02/2015 03:40 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/07/2015 15:17, Eric Auger wrote:
>> - new fields are added on producer side: linux irq, vfio_device handle,
>>   active which reflects whether the source is active (at interrupt
>>   controller level or at VFIO level - automasked -) and finally an
>>   opaque pointer which will be used to point to the vfio_platform_device
>>   in this series.
> 
> Linux IRQ and active should be okay.  As to the vfio_device handle, you
> should link it from the vfio_platform_device instead.  And for the
> vfio_platform_device, you can link it from the vfio_platform_irq instead.
For this last one, I don't think this is achievable since if I store the
vfio_platform_irq in the opaque, it matches irqs[i] of
vfio_platform_device and I don't have any mean to retrieve "i" when
calling container_of.


	struct vfio_platform_irq *irq =
		container_of(prod, struct vfio_platform_irq, producer);
	struct vfio_platform_device *vpdev =
		container_of(irq, struct vfio_platform_device,  irqs[i?]);


struct vfio_platform_device {
../..
        struct vfio_platform_irq        *irqs;
../..
}
So I think I still need to pass vfio_platform_device in the opaque and
look on irqs array to identify the right vfio_platform_irq *.

Do I miss sthg?

- Eric


> 
> Once you've done this, embed the irq_bypass_producer struct in the
> vfio_platform_irq struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to
> the vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of.  From there you can
> retrieve pointers to the vfio_platform_device and the vfio_device.
> 
>> - new fields on consumer side: the kvm handle, the gsi
> 
> You do not need to add these.  Instead, add the kvm handle to irqfd
> only.  Like above, embed the irq_bypass_consumer struct in the irqfd
> struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to the
> vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of.
> 
> 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/