linux-kernel - Re: Xen regression, Was: [PATCH] x86/irq: Probe for PIC presence before allocating descs for legacy IRQs

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1604121409460.23347@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
cc:	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	david.vrabel@...rix.com, jgross@...e.com
Subject: Re: Xen regression, Was: [PATCH] x86/irq: Probe for PIC presence
 before allocating descs for legacy IRQs

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 02:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > On 04/11/2016 10:08 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately this patch (now commit
> > > > 8c058b0b9c34d8c8d7912880956543769323e2d8) causes a regression on Xen
> > > > when running on top of QEMU: the number of PIT irqs get set to 0 by
> > > > probe_8259A but actually there are 16.
> > > > 
> > > > Any suggestions on how to fix this?
> > > > 
> > > > 1) we could revert 8c058b0b9c34d8c8d7912880956543769323e2d8
> > > > 2) we could introduce an 'if (!xen_domain())' in probe_8259A
> > > > 3) suggestions welcome
> > > Stefano, do you have b4ff8389ed14b849354b59ce9b360bdefcdbf99c ?
> > > 
> > > It was supposed to fix this problem for Xen. However, I just noticed that
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h makes nr_legacy_irqs() return 0 (unlike
> > > arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h). Could that be the problem?
> > I have b4ff8389ed14b849354b59ce9b360bdefcdbf99c but it doesn't fix the
> > issue for me.
> > 
> > Is the idea of your patch that xen_allocate_irq_gsi will allocate the
> > descriptor dynamically instead?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > If so, it doesn't work because it
> > doesn't get called for irq 14:
> 
> So how has it worked until now then?

It didn't for me :-)
Maybe it was working for DomUs, but not for Dom0?


> > piix_init_one -> ata_pci_sff_activate_host -> devm_request_irq ->
> > devm_request_threaded_irq-> request_threaded_irq -> irq_to_desc(14) ->
> > -EVAIL
> > 
> > If you look at pci_xen_initial_domain, the loop:
> > 
> > for (irq = 0; irq < nr_legacy_irqs(); irq++) {
> > 
> > won't work anymore because by the time is called, nr_legacy_irqs()
> > already returns 0, because it has been changed by probe_8259A().
> > 
> > We also need the following patch:
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > xen/x86: actually allocate legacy interrupts on PV guests
> > 
> > b4ff8389ed14 is incomplete: relies on nr_legacy_irqs() to get the number
> > of legacy interrupts when actually nr_legacy_irqs() returns 0 after
> > probe_8259A(). Use NR_IRQS_LEGACY instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> > index beac4df..6db0060 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ int __init pci_xen_initial_domain(void)
> >   	__acpi_register_gsi = acpi_register_gsi_xen;
> >   	__acpi_unregister_gsi = NULL;
> >   	/* Pre-allocate legacy irqs */
> > -	for (irq = 0; irq < nr_legacy_irqs(); irq++) {
> > +	for (irq = 0; irq < NR_IRQS_LEGACY; irq++) {
> >   		int trigger, polarity;
> >     		if (acpi_get_override_irq(irq, &trigger, &polarity) == -1)
> 
> 
> Won't we need the same change in the 'if (0 == nr_ioapics)' clause?

That's not a problem: there is 1 ioapic in my system and is detected
correctly.