linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Improve comment on kvm_vgic_inject

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: <86r2bzrful.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:40:50 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Jun Yao <yaojun8558363@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Improve comment on kvm_vgic_inject_irq

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:49:06 +0000,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:39:23AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > > > > index 7cfdfbc910e0..79fe64c15051 100644
> > > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > > > > @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ bool vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
> > > > >  /**
> > > > >   * kvm_vgic_inject_irq - Inject an IRQ from a device to the vgic
> > > > >   * @kvm:     The VM structure pointer
> > > > > - * @cpuid:   The CPU for PPIs
> > > > > + * @cpuid:   The CPU for PPIs and SPIs
> > > > >   * @intid:   The INTID to inject a new state to.
> > > > >   * @level:   Edge-triggered:  true:  to trigger the interrupt
> > > > >   *			      false: to ignore the call  
> > > > 
> > > > What does the CPU mean for SPIs? By definition, the routing of an SPI
> > > > is defined by the distributor configuration.  
> > > 
> > > In the code, KVM injects PPIs by specifying CPU id, so that every PPI
> > > is bound to specific target CPU.  But for SPIs, it always pass '0' for
> > > cpuid, from my understanding this means VM will set interrupt affinity
> > > to VCPU0 by default; in theory we also can set different cpuid for
> > > SPIs so that the SPIs also can be handled by other secondary VCPUs;
> > > this is why I think @cpuid also can be used by SPIs.
> > 
> > SPIs are not hardcoded to vcpu0. This would be a gross violation of the
> > architecture. To convince yourself of this, just run a guest:
> > 
> > root@...ssigned-hostname:~# cat /proc/interrupts 
> >            CPU0       CPU1       
> >   2:       7315       7353     GIC-0  27 Level     arch_timer
> >   4:        158          0     GIC-0  33 Level     uart-pl011
> >  42:          0          0     GIC-0  23 Level     arm-pmu
> >  43:          0          0     pl061   3 Edge      ACPI:Event
> >  44:          0          0       MSI 32768 Edge      virtio1-config
> >  45:      10476          0       MSI 32769 Edge      virtio1-req.0
> >  46:          0          0       MSI 16384 Edge      virtio0-config
> >  47:          3         10       MSI 16385 Edge      virtio0-input.0
> > [...]
> > 
> > On this last line, you can see an SPI being routed to both of these
> > vcpus.
> > 
> > I urge you to read the code further, and understand that for any other
> > interrupt class, the cpuid parameter is *ignored*. Yes, we pass zero in
> > that case. We could also pass an approximation of PI with the same
> > effect.
> 
> Very appreciate for the elaborated example; will read the code
> furthermore.
> 
> > The interrupt affinity is either defined by the distributor
> > configuration (SPIs) or the ITS configuration (LPIs).
> 
> Given to the up example, I am struggling to understand how you can set
> the interrupt affinity for virtio device.
> 
> Do you set the physical interrupt affinity to CPU0/1 in host OS and
> forward it to guest OS?  Or set interrupt affinity in guest OS (I
> tried on Juno board to set irq affinity in guest OS from
> '/proc/irq/xxx/smp_affinity' but failed)?   Or this is accomplished by
> user space tool (lkvm or qemu)?

virtio interrupts are purely virtual, and the host plays no part in
their routing (nor does userspace). As for their affinity, that
depends on the virtio driver. Some virtio devices allow their affinity
to be changed, some don't. Here, this is a virtio-net device, which is
perfectly happy to see its queue interrupts moved to a different vcpu.

I tend to run irqbalance in my guests so that it actually exercises
the affinity setting in the background.

> Sorry if I am asking a stupid question :)

It's not stupid. You're simply confusing multiple independent layers.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.