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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810301845330.5984@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:46:06 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
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 Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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?

Updated combo patch would be nice :)

Thanks

	lazytglx