linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH char-misc 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Make synic

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: <8736vyo2tm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:26:13 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "mhkelley58\@gmail.com" <mhkelley58@...il.com>,
        "gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devel\@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        "olaf\@aepfle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
        "apw\@canonical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "jasowang\@redhat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "marcelo.cerri\@canonical.com" <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Make synic_initialized flag per-cpu

"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com> writes:

> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 4:20 AM
>> 
>> Alternatively, we can get rid of synic_initialized flag altogether:
>> hv_synic_init() never fails in the first place but we can always
>> implement something like:
>> 
>> int hv_synic_is_initialized(void) {
>> 	union hv_synic_scontrol sctrl;
>> 
>> 	hv_get_synic_state(sctrl.as_uint64);
>> 
>> 	return sctrl.enable;
>> }
>> 
>> as it doesn't seem that we need to check synic state on _other_ CPUs.
>> 
>
> I was trying to decide if there are any arguments in favor of one
> approach vs. the other:  a per-cpu flag in memory or checking
> the synic_control "enable" bit.   Seems like a wash to me, in which
> case I have a slight preference for the per-cpu flag in memory vs.
> creating another function to return sctrl.enable.  But I'm completely
> open to reasons why checking sctrl.enable is better.

Just a few thoughts: reading MSR is definitely slower but we avoid
'shadowing' the state, the reading is always correct. In case there's a
chance the SynIC will get disabled from host side we can only find this
out by doing MSR read. This is a purely theoretical possibility, I
believe, we can go ahead with this patch.

-- 
  Vitaly