linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/16] x86/xen: irq/upcall handling with multiple xenhosts

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, 14 Jun 2019 14:01:14 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, sstabellini@...nel.org,
        joao.m.martins@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/16] x86/xen: irq/upcall handling with multiple
 xenhosts

On 09.05.19 19:25, Ankur Arora wrote:
> For configurations with multiple xenhosts, we need to handle events
> generated from multiple xenhosts.
> 
> Having more than one upcall handler might be quite hairy, and it would
> be simpler if the callback from L0-Xen could be bounced via L1-Xen.
> This will also mean simpler pv_irq_ops code because now the IF flag
> maps onto the xh_default->vcpu_info->evtchn_upcall_mask.
> 
> However, we still update the xh_remote->vcpu_info->evtchn_upcall_mask
> on a best effort basis to minimize unnecessary work in remote xenhost.

This is another design decision yet to be taken.

My current prefernce is L1 Xen mapping events from L0 to L1 guest
events.


Juergen