linux-kernel - Re: xen/evtchn and forced threaded irq

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:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:44:04 -0700
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Julien Grall" <julien.grall@....com>
Cc:     "Dave P Martin" <dave.martin@....com>,
        "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        "xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xen/evtchn and forced threaded irq

>>> On 20.02.19 at 23:03, <julien.grall@....com> wrote:
> On 2/20/19 9:46 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 2/20/19 3:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 2/20/19 8:04 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 2/20/19 1:05 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Some sort of a FIFO that stores {irq, data} tuple. It could obviously be
>>>> implemented as a ring but not necessarily as Xen shared ring (if that's
>>>> what you were referring to).

I'm sort of lost here with the mixed references to "interrupts" and
"events". Interrupts can be shared (and have a per-instance
(irq,data) tuple), but there should be at most one interrupt
underlying the event channel systems, shouldn't there? Event
channels otoh can't be shared, and hence there's only one
"data" item to be associated with each channel, at which point a
plain counter ought to do.

>>> The underlying question is what happen if you miss an interrupt. Is it
>>> going to be ok?
>> 
>> This I am not sure about. I thought yes since we are signaling the
>> process only once.
> 
> I have CCed Andrew and Jan to see if they can help here.

What meaning of "miss" do you use here? As long as is only means
delay (i.e. miss an instance, but get notified as soon as feasible
even if there is not further event coming from the source) - that
would be okay, I think. But if you truly mean "miss" (i.e. event lost
altogether, with silence resulting if there's no further event), then
no, this would not be tolerable.

Jan