linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context

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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:06:31 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context

On 04/25/2018 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> AFAIU this will be the problem of the person implementing the clear
>> and the halt for vfio-ccw. I.e. it's a non-problem right now.
> Well, that person is me:)  I will post some RFC Real Soon Now if I stop
> getting sidetracked...
> 

Makes sense. It should be fine either way AFAIU.

CSCH, more precisely the clear function is supposed to clear the
interruption request(s) too. But I guess there is no way of the CP to
identify an I/O interrupt that should have been cleared -- that is catch
us disrespecting the architecture. I can't think of a way to establish
must happen before relationship...

But discarding the first interrupt and delivering just one for the CSCH
is fine too for the same reason.

Regards,
Halil