linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 17/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INVALL applied to a vPE

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: <2c791b55-f16d-5e2b-a876-126239cf04d1@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:56:32 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>,
        Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        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 17/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INVALL applied to
 a vPE

On 10/11/17 08:41, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:23:25PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Since when updating the properties one LPI at a time, there is no
>> Since we update the properties one LPI at a time, ... ?
>>> need to perform an INV each time we read one. Instead, we rely
>>> on the final VINVALL that gets sent to the ITS to do the work.
>> The commit message is not crystal clear for me.
>>
>> I understand in case of vgic_its_cmd_handle_invall you want to avoid
>> doing an invalidation for each physical irq but rather do an
>> its_invall_vpe at the end. So you add a new  @needs_inv arg to
>> update_lpi_config to tell whether the invalidation should be done or not.
> 
> I've reworded it to:
> 
>   There is no need to perform an INV for each interrupt when updating
>   multiple interrupts.  Instead, we can rely on the final VINVALL that
>   gets sent to the ITS to do the work for all of them.
> 
> 
> Shout quickly if you have any objections.

Works for me.

Thanks,

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