linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its: Add the checking of ITS version for KVM

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:35:39 +0800
From:   Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wangwudi <wangwudi@...ilicon.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its: Add the checking of ITS
 version for KVM

Hi Marc,

On 2021/7/19 18:39, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:39:50 +0100,
> Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> A gentle ping.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shaokun
>>
>> On 2021/6/22 14:12, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>>> From: wangwudi <wangwudi@...ilicon.com>
>>>
>>> The version of GIC used by KVM is provided by gic_v3_kvm_info. The
>>> KVM that supports GICv4 or GICv4.1 only checks GIC version. Actually,
>>> the GIC and ITS need to work together. If we have multiple ITSs and
>>> GIC supports v4, there are two cases:
>>> 1. None of the ITS supports GICv4, gic_v3_kvm_info.has_v4is false,
>>> so the KVM will use GICv3;
>>> 2. At least one ITS supports GICv4, gic_v3_kvm_info has_v4 is true,
>>> so the KVM can use GICv4;
>>>
>>> It is the same as GICv4.1. For the first case that the KVM can use
>>> GICv4, it seems non-sensible. If we do check the ITS version, it
>>> will give correct version for KVM. So add the checking of ITS
>>> version for KVM: If and only if both GIC & ITS support GICv4,
>>> gic_kvm_info.has_v4 is true. If and only if both GIC & ITS support
>>> GICv4.1, gic_kvm_info.has_v4_1 is true.
> 
> What you don't explain here is what goes wrong. If there is no ITS

That's not completely wrong, we only want to make it more reasonable as
we said that in commit log.

> that supports GICv4.1 while the CPU interfaces and the RDs are
> advertising this support, so be it.
> 
> So please explain what goes wrong, and whether there is any platform
> in the wild that is showing this problem.

To be honest, I'm not sure that some platform has this issue. It is
detected by code reading.

Thanks,
Shaokun

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>