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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:18:04 +0100
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     mimu@...ux.ibm.com, KVM Mailing List <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-S390 Mailing List <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] KVM: s390: add function
 process_gib_alert_list()

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:49:56 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 09/01/2019 14:10, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:14:17 +0100
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 08/01/2019 16:21, Michael Mueller wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08.01.19 13:59, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:17:54 +0100
> >>>> Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This function processes the Gib Alert List (GAL). It is required
> >>>>> to run when either a gib alert interruption has been received or
> >>>>> a gisa that is in the alert list is cleared or dropped.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The GAL is build up by millicode, when the respective ISC bit is
> >>>>> set in the Interruption Alert Mask (IAM) and an interruption of
> >>>>> that class is observed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>    arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 140
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>    1 file changed, 140 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> >>>>> index 48a93f5e5333..03e7ba4f215a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> >>>>> @@ -2941,6 +2941,146 @@ int kvm_s390_get_irq_state(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>>>> *vcpu, __u8 __user *buf, int len)
> >>>>>        return n;
> >>>>>    }
> >>>>> +static int __try_airqs_kick(struct kvm *kvm, u8 ipm)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +    struct kvm_s390_float_interrupt *fi = &kvm->arch.float_int;
> >>>>> +    struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL, *kick_vcpu[MAX_ISC + 1];
> >>>>> +    int online_vcpus = atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus);
> >>>>> +    u8 ioint_mask, isc_mask, kick_mask = 0x00;
> >>>>> +    int vcpu_id, kicked = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +    /* Loop over vcpus in WAIT state. */
> >>>>> +    for (vcpu_id = find_first_bit(fi->idle_mask, online_vcpus);
> >>>>> +         /* Until all pending ISCs have a vcpu open for airqs. */
> >>>>> +         (~kick_mask & ipm) && vcpu_id < online_vcpus;
> >>>>> +         vcpu_id = find_next_bit(fi->idle_mask, online_vcpus,
> >>>>> vcpu_id)) {
> >>>>> +        vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, vcpu_id);
> >>>>> +        if (psw_ioint_disabled(vcpu))
> >>>>> +            continue;
> >>>>> +        ioint_mask = (u8)(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr[6] >> 24);
> >>>>> +        for (isc_mask = 0x80; isc_mask; isc_mask >>= 1) {
> >>>>> +            /* ISC pending in IPM ? */
> >>>>> +            if (!(ipm & isc_mask))
> >>>>> +                continue;
> >>>>> +            /* vcpu for this ISC already found ? */
> >>>>> +            if (kick_mask & isc_mask)
> >>>>> +                continue;
> >>>>> +            /* vcpu open for airq of this ISC ? */
> >>>>> +            if (!(ioint_mask & isc_mask))
> >>>>> +                continue;
> >>>>> +            /* use this vcpu (for all ISCs in ioint_mask) */
> >>>>> +            kick_mask |= ioint_mask;
> >>>>> +            kick_vcpu[kicked++] = vcpu;
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming that the vcpu can/will take all ISCs it's currently open for
> >>>> does not seem right. We kind of rely on this assumption here, or?
> >>
> >> why does it not seem right?
> >>
> > 
> > When an interrupt is delivered a psw-swap takes place. The new-psw
> > may fence IO interrupts. Thus for example if we have the vcpu open for
> > all ISCs and 0, 1 and 2 pending, we may end up only delivering 0, if the
> > psw-swap corresponding to delivering 0 closes the vcpu for IO
> > interrupts. After guest has control, we don't have control over the rest
> > of the story.
> 
> OK I think I understand your concern, waking up a single waiting vCPU 
> per ISC is not enough.
> We must wake all vCPU in wait state having at least one matching ISC bit.
> 

That is not what I was trying to say, and IMHO generally it also ain't
true that we must. But I may be missing something.

Regards,
Halil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists