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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:40:56 +0200 From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, cohuck@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context On 24/04/2018 08:54, Dong Jia Shi wrote: > * Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2018-04-19 16:48:04 +0200]: > > [...] > >> @@ -94,9 +83,15 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct *work) >> static void vfio_ccw_sch_irq(struct subchannel *sch) >> { >> struct vfio_ccw_private *private = dev_get_drvdata(&sch->dev); >> + struct irb *irb = this_cpu_ptr(&cio_irb); >> >> inc_irq_stat(IRQIO_CIO); >> - vfio_ccw_fsm_event(private, VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT); >> + memcpy(&private->irb, irb, sizeof(*irb)); >> + >> + WARN_ON(work_pending(&private->io_work)); > Hmm, why do we need this? The current design insure that we have not two concurrent SSCH requests. How ever I want here to track spurious interrupt. If we implement cancel, halt or clear requests, we also may trigger (AFAIU) a second interrupts depending on races between instructions, controller and device. We do not need it strongly. > >> + queue_work(vfio_ccw_work_q, &private->io_work); >> + if (private->completion) >> + complete(private->completion); >> } >> >> static int vfio_ccw_sch_probe(struct subchannel *sch) > [...] > -- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
Powered by blists - more mailing lists