linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support

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: <CAJWu+op31kGH9BpHS5+8ARPuote4n_3XUB=W6YF8yS0ePS1dMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:58:47 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:53 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@...omium.org> wrote:

> > > +DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +       return static_call(pv_vcpu_is_preempted)(cpu);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int __init pv_vcpu_state_init(void);
> > > +
> > >  #else
> > >
> > > +#define pv_vcpu_state_init() do {} while (0)
> > > +
> > >  #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0)
> > >
> > >  #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > index 75fed4460407..d8fc46795d94 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > @@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ struct pv_time_stolen_time_region {
> > >
> > >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pv_time_stolen_time_region, stolen_time_region);
> > >
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vcpu_state, vcpus_states);
> > > +struct static_key pv_vcpu_is_preempted_enabled;
> > > +
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> >
> > Could we use DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL and get rid of the dummy
> > function? I believe that makes the function trampoline as return
> > instruction, till it is updated.
>
> Is DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL for cases when function returns void?
>
> We need something that returns `false` to vcpu_is_preempted() or
> per_cpu(vcpus_states) once pv vcpu-state is initialised.

Ah, that might be problematic. In which case what you did is fine. Thanks,

- Joel



>
> [..]
> > > +static bool __vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct vcpu_state *st;
> > > +
> > > +       st = &per_cpu(vcpus_states, cpu);
> > > +       return READ_ONCE(st->preempted);
> >
> > I guess you could just do:
> > {
> >   return READ_ONCE(per_cpu(vcpus_states, cpu).preempted);
> > }
>
> Ack.