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  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:   Sun, 3 May 2020 17:20:41 -0700
From:   "Dey, Megha" <>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <>
Cc:     Dan Williams <>,
        Dave Jiang <>,
        Vinod Koul <>,,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Greg KH <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Alex Williamson <>,
        Jacob jun Pan <>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <>, Yi L Liu <>,, "Tian, Kevin" <>,
        Sanjay K Kumar <>,
        "Luck, Tony" <>, Jing Lin <>,,,,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        X86 ML <>,,
        KVM list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS
 support for the idxd driver.

On 5/3/2020 3:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:31:39PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>> On 5/3/2020 3:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>>>>>> This has been my concern reviewing the implementation. IMS needs more
>>>>>> than one in-tree user to validate degrees of freedom in the api. I had
>>>>>> been missing a second "in-tree user" to validate the scope of the
>>>>>> flexibility that was needed.
>>>>> IMS is too narrowly specified.
>>>>> All platforms that support MSI today can support IMS. It is simply a
>>>>> way for the platform to give the driver an addr/data pair that triggers
>>>>> an interrupt when a posted write is performed to that pair.
>>>> Well, yes and no. IMS requires interrupt remapping in addition to the
>>>> dynamic nature of IRQ allocation.
>>> You've mentioned remapping a few times, but I really can't understand
>>> why it has anything to do with platform_msi or IMS..
>> So after some internal discussions, we have concluded that IMS has no
>> linkage with Interrupt remapping, IR is just a platform concept. IMS is just
>> a name Intel came up with, all it really means is device managed addr/data
>> writes to generate interrupts. Technically we can call something IMS even if
>> device has its own location to store interrupts in non-pci standard
>> mechanism, much like platform-msi indeed. We simply need to extend
>> platform-msi to its address some of its shortcomings: increase number of
>> interrupts to > 2048, enable dynamic allocation of interrupts, add
>> mask/unmask callbacks in addition to write_msg etc.
> Sounds right to me
> Persumably you still need a way for the driver, eg vfio, to ensure a
> MSI is remappable, but shouldn't that be exactly the same way as done
> in normal PCI MSI today?

yes exactly, it should be done in the same way as PCI-MSI, if IR is 
enabled we will have IR_PCI_MSI for platform msi as well.
>> FWIW, even MSI can be IMS with rules on how to manage the addr/data writes
>> following pci sig .. its just that.
> Yep, IMHO, our whole handling of MSI is very un-general sometimes..
> I thought the msi_domain stuff that some platforms are using is a way
> to improve on that? You might find that updating x86 to use msi_domain
> might be helpful in this project???

yes, we need to take a closer look at this.
> Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists