linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing) sets of IRQs

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: <a692fbb3-59ca-0ddb-7abd-67ffc7bfcc1f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:34:32 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing)
 sets of IRQs

On 10/30/18 11:25 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jens,
> 
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/30/18 10:02 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() starts at the provided max_vecs. If
>>> that doesn't work, it will iterate down to min_vecs without returning to
>>> the caller. The caller doesn't have a chance to adjust its sets between
>>> iterations when you provide a range.
>>>
>>> The 'masks' overrun problem happens if the caller provides min_vecs
>>> as a smaller value than the sum of the set (plus any reserved).
>>>
>>> If it's up to the caller to ensure that doesn't happen, then min and
>>> max must both be the same value, and that value must also be the same as
>>> the set sum + reserved vectors. The range just becomes redundant since
>>> it is already bounded by the set.
>>>
>>> Using the nvme example, it would need something like this to prevent the
>>> 'masks' overrun:
>>
>> OK, now I hear what you are saying. And you are right, the callers needs
>> to provide minvec == maxvec for sets, and then have a loop around that
>> to adjust as needed.
> 
> But then we should enforce it in the core code, right?

Yes, I was going to ask you if you want a followup patch for that, or
an updated version of the original?

-- 
Jens Axboe