linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts

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: <56A07584.1000301@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:07:00 +0800
From:	Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>
To:	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver
 lowest-priority interrupts

On 2016/1/21 14:02, Wu, Feng wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yang Zhang [mailto:yang.zhang.wz@...il.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:58 PM
>> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@...el.com>; pbonzini@...hat.com;
>> rkrcmar@...hat.com
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
>> priority interrupts
>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember we have discussed that even the LAPIC is software disabled,
>>>> it still can respond to some interrupts like INIT, NMI, SMI, and SIPI
>>>> messages. Isn't current logic still problematically?
>>>
>>> I don't think there are problems, here we only cover lowest-priority mode.
>>
>> Does Intel SDM said those interrupts cannot be delivered on
>> lowest-priority mode?
>
> Fixed, Lowest-priority, SMI, NMI, INIT are all "Delivery Mode", once it is
> Lowest-priority, it cannot be other type, afaik.

You are correct, I missed it with physical and logical mode. Also, i 
noticed you have the check at the beginning:

+		if (!kvm_lowest_prio_delivery(irq))
+			goto set_irq;

-- 
best regards
yang