linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 10/39] KVM: x86/xen: support upcall vector

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: <f92d0cfa-f1fe-9339-e319-946f6475131d@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:12:58 +0000
From:   Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, karahmed@...zon.de
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/39] KVM: x86/xen: support upcall vector

On 12/9/20 3:41 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 9 December 2020 13:26:55 GMT, Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com> wrote:
>> On 12/9/20 11:39 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, Xen's hvm_vcpu_has_pending_irq() will still
>>> return the domain-wide vector in preference to the one in the LAPIC,
>> if
>>> it actually gets invoked. 
>>
>> Only if the callback installed is HVMIRQ_callback_vector IIUC.
>>
>> Otherwise the vector would be pending like any other LAPIC vector.
> 
> Ah, right.
> 
> For some reason I had it in my head that you could only set the per-vCPU lapic vector if the domain was set to HVMIRQ_callback_vector. If the domain is set to HVMIRQ_callback_none, that clearly makes more sense.
> 
> Still, my patch should do the same as Xen does in the case where a guest does set both, I think.
> 
> Faithful compatibility with odd Xen behaviour FTW :)
> 
Ah, yes. In that case, HVMIRQ_callback_vector does take precedence.

But it would be very weird for a guest to setup two callback vectors :)