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:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 23:44:36 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
        Prasanna Panchamukhi <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Cathy Avery <>,
        Haiyang Zhang <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <>,
        "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <>,
        Mohammed Gamal <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Radim Krčmář <>,
        Roman Kagan <>,
        Sasha Levin <>,
        Stephen Hemminger <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,,,,,
        Dmitry Safonov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyperv: Disable preemption while setting reenlightenment vector

Peter Zijlstra <> writes:

> I know you probably can't change the HV interface, but I'm thinking its
> rather daft you have to specify a CPU at all for this. The HV can just
> pick one and send the notification there, who cares.

Generally speaking, hypervisor can't know if the CPU is offline (or
e.g. 'isolated') from guest's perspective so I think having an option to
specify affinity for reenlightenment notification is rather a good
thing, not bad.

(Actually, I don't remember if I tried specifying 'HV_ANY' (U32_MAX-1)
here to see what happens. But then I doubt it'll notice the fact that we 
offlined some CPU so we may get a totally unexpected IRQ there).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists