linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 16/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate property updates to VLPIs

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: <49bff080-0908-cc7a-7036-543f963180a5@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:08:36 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>,
        Andre Przywara <Andre.Przywara@....com>,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 16/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate property
 updates to VLPIs

On 07/11/17 21:28, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Upon updating a property, we propagate it all the way to the physical
>> ITS, and ask for an INV command to be executed there.
>>
>> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>> ---
>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> index 0b7e648e7a0c..2e77c7c83942 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> @@ -296,6 +296,9 @@ static int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
>>  		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (irq->hw)
>> +		return its_prop_update_vlpi(irq->host_irq, prop, true);
>> +
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
> I am confused by the vgic_queue_irq_unlock() on the "hw" path. Why is it
> needed in hw mode?

It's not. I guess we could bypass this altogether and take a short cut
after having updated the priority and enabled fields.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...