linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH linux 2/8] xen: introduce xen_vcpu

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <5774FE1302000078000F9FED@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:10:11 -0600
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Juergen Gross" <JGross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH linux 2/8] xen: introduce xen_vcpu_id
 mapping

>>> On 29.06.16 at 18:27, <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/16 17:19, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> To explain better what I'm trying to suggest here please take a look at
>> the attached patch. If we can guarantee long term that ACPI id always
>> equals to Xen's idea of vCPU id this is probably the easiest way.
>>
>> -- Vitaly
> 
> The code in hvmloader which sets up the MADT does:
> 
>     for ( i = 0; i < hvm_info->nr_vcpus; i++ )
>     {
>         memset(lapic, 0, sizeof(*lapic));
>         lapic->type    = ACPI_PROCESSOR_LOCAL_APIC;
>         lapic->length  = sizeof(*lapic);
>         /* Processor ID must match processor-object IDs in the DSDT. */
>         lapic->acpi_processor_id = i;
>         lapic->apic_id = LAPIC_ID(i);
>         lapic->flags = (test_bit(i, hvm_info->vcpu_online)
>                         ? ACPI_LOCAL_APIC_ENABLED : 0);
>         lapic++;
>     }
> 
> So relying on the acpi_processor_id does look to be reliable.  That code
> hasn't changed since 2007, and that was only a bugfix.  I would go so
> far as to say it is reasonable for us to guarantee this in the guest ABI.

In fact - is there any other way a guest could learn the vCPU IDs
of its CPUs in a reliable way? I don't think so, and hence this de
facto already is part of the ABI; we should of course spell it out
somewhere.

Jan