[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97b12c99-60e4-e3d9-a728-e7d1a7c09e41@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:19:31 -0800
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Gayatri Kammela" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Randy E Witt <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] x86 User Interrupts support
On 10/1/2021 1:19 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
Thank you for reviewing the patches!
>> Instructions
>> ------------
>> senduipi <index> - send a user IPI to a target task based on the UITT index.
>>
>> clui - Mask user interrupts by clearing UIF (User Interrupt Flag).
>>
>> stui - Unmask user interrupts by setting UIF.
>>
>> testui - Test current value of UIF.
>>
>> uiret - return from a user interrupt handler.
>
> Are other CPU vendors allowed to implement compatible instructions?
>
> If not, we should probably have VDSO entries so kernel can abstract
> differences between CPUs.
>
Yes, we are evaluating VDSO support for this.
>> Untrusted processes
>> -------------------
>> The current implementation expects only trusted and cooperating processes to
>> communicate using user interrupts. Coordination is expected between processes
>> for a connection teardown. In situations where coordination doesn't happen
>> (say, due to abrupt process exit), the kernel would end up keeping shared
>> resources (like UPID) allocated to avoid faults.
>
> Keeping resources allocated after process exit is a no-no.
>
I meant the resource is still tracked via the shared file descriptor, so
it will eventually get freed when the FD release happens. I am planning
to include better documentation on lifetime rules of these shared
resources next time.
Thanks,
Sohil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists