[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sfy8ds53.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:31:36 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hetzelt, Felicitas" <f.hetzelt@...berlin.de>,
"kaplan, david" <david.kaplan@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
pbonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
James E J Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts
On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 16:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:38:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 15:07, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >> > But doen't "irq is disabled" basically mean "we told the hypervisor
>> >> > to disable the irq"? What extractly prevents hypervisor from
>> >> > sending the irq even if guest thinks it disabled it?
>> >>
>> >> More generally, can't we for example blow away the
>> >> indir_desc array that we use to keep the ctx pointers?
>> >> Won't that be enough?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how it is related to the indirect descriptor but an
>> > example is that all the current driver will assume:
>> >
>> > 1) the interrupt won't be raised before virtio_device_ready()
>> > 2) the interrupt won't be raised after reset()
>>
>> If that assumption exists, then you better keep the interrupt line
>> disabled until virtio_device_ready() has completed
>
> started not completed. device is allowed to send
> config interrupts right after DRIVER_OK status is set by
> virtio_device_ready.
Whatever:
* Define the exact point from which on the driver is able to handle the
interrupt and put the enable after that point
* Define the exact point from which on the driver is unable to handle
the interrupt and put the disable before that point
The above is blury.
>> and disable it again
>> before reset() is invoked. That's a question of general robustness and
>> not really a question of trusted hypervisors and encrypted guests.
>
> We can do this for some MSIX interrupts, sure. Not for shared interrupts though.
See my reply to the next patch. The problem is the same:
* Define the exact point from which on the driver is able to handle the
interrupt and allow the handler to proceed after that point
* Define the exact point from which on the driver is unable to handle
the interrupt and ensure that the handler denies to proceed before
that point
Same story just a different mechanism.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists