linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/Xen: streamline (and fix) PV CPU enumeration

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, 29 Mar 2019 09:42:27 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Xen: streamline (and fix) PV CPU enumeration

On 3/29/19 4:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.03.19 at 17:50, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given especially xen_pv_smp_prepare_cpus(), I think re-working proper
>> setting of present/possible masks is well beyond the scope of your
>> original patch.
> Well, then the question is, what (if any) changes are you
> expecting me to make for this change to be acceptable? Or do
> you perhaps want me to add a 2nd patch on top addressing
> the other outlined anomalies?

If your goal is just to fix the dom0_max_vcpus issue then this patch is
sufficient (but the commit message should say that this is what the
patch is for).

But if you are trying to make cpu masks management done properly then I
think this patch alone does not address this fully.

-boris