linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: X86: Add "nopvspin" parameter to disable PV spinlocks

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: <fdd14f28-74e9-5cf9-2f5a-09c884c55110@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 17:47:00 +0800
From:   Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: X86: Add "nopvspin" parameter to disable PV
 spinlocks


On 2019/10/1 16:39, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Zhenzhong Duan<zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>  writes:
>
>> On 2019/9/30 23:41, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Zhenzhong Duan<zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" on XEN platform and
>>>> "hv_nopvspin" on HYPER_V).
>>>>
>>>> That feature is missed on KVM, add a new parameter "nopvspin" to disable
>>>> PV spinlocks for KVM guest.
>>>>
>>>> This new parameter is also intended to replace "xen_nopvspin" and
>>>> "hv_nopvspin" in the future.
>>> Any reason to not do it right now? We will probably need to have compat
>>> code to support xen_nopvspin/hv_nopvspin too but emit a 'is deprecated'
>>> warning.
>> Sorry the description isn't clear, I'll fix it.
>>
>> I did the compat work in the other two patches.
>> [PATCH 2/3] xen: Mark "xen_nopvspin" parameter obsolete and map it to "nopvspin"
>> [PATCH 3/3] x86/hyperv: Mark "hv_nopvspin" parameter obsolete and map it to "nopvspin"
>>
> For some reason I got CCed only on the first one and moreover,

The three patches have different maintainers/reviewers by get_maintainer.pl, I added
"Cc: maintainers/reviewers" to each patch then git-sendemail picked them automaticly.
I meaned to not disturb maintainers with the field they aren't in charge of. It looks
I'm wrong.

So what's the correct way dealing with this? Should I send the whole patchset to all
the maintainers/reviewers related to all the patches?

> I don't see e.g PATCH3 on 'linux-hyperv' mailing list.

Thanks for point out, I'll add it.

Zhenzhong