linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/20] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Plumb get/set_irqchip

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: <54c52057161f925c818446953050c951@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 01 Mar 2020 19:00:51 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/20] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Plumb get/set_irqchip_state
 SGI callbacks

On 2020-02-28 19:37, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-02-20 03:11, Zenghui Yu wrote:

>> Do we really need to grab the vpe_lock for those which are belong to
>> the same irqchip with its_vpe_set_affinity()? The IRQ core code should
>> already ensure the mutual exclusion among them, wrong?
> 
> I've been trying to think about that, but jet-lag keeps getting in the 
> way.
> I empirically think that you are right, but I need to go and check the 
> various
> code paths to be sure. Hopefully I'll have a bit more brain space next 
> week.

So I slept on it and came back to my senses. The only case we actually 
need
to deal with is when an affinity change impacts *another* interrupt.

There is only two instances of this issue:

- vLPIs have their *physical* affinity impacted by the affinity of the
   vPE. Their virtual affinity is of course unchanged, but the physical
   one becomes important with direct invalidation. Taking a per-VPE lock
   in such context should address the issue.

- vSGIs have the exact same issue, plus the matter of requiring some
   *extra* one when reading the pending state, which requires a RMW
   on two different registers. This requires an extra per-RD lock.

My original patch was stupidly complex, and the irq_desc lock is
perfectly enough to deal with anything that only affects the interrupt
state itself.

GICv4 + direct invalidation for vLPIs breaks this by bypassing the
serialization initially provided by the ITS, as the RD is completely
out of band. The per-vPE lock brings back this serialization.

I've updated the branch, which seems to run OK on D05. I still need
to run the usual tests on the FVP model though.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...