linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/32] s390/pci: externalize the SIC operation controls and routine

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]
Date:   Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:41:14 +0100
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        farman@...ux.ibm.com, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com,
        agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, vneethv@...ux.ibm.com,
        oberpar@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/32] s390/pci: externalize the SIC operation controls
 and routine

On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 11:20 -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 12/8/21 10:59 AM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 10:33 -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> > > On 12/8/21 8:53 AM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 14:09 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > Am 07.12.21 um 21:57 schrieb Matthew Rosato:
> > > > > > A subsequent patch will be issuing SIC from KVM -- export the necessary
> > > > > > routine and make the operation control definitions available from a header.
> > > > > > Because the routine will now be exported, let's swap the purpose of
> > > > > > zpci_set_irq_ctrl and __zpci_set_irq_ctrl, leaving the latter as a static
> > > > > > within pci_irq.c only for SIC calls that don't specify an iib.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe it would be simpler to export the __ version instead of renaming everything.
> > > > > Whatever Niklas prefers.
> > > > 
> > > > See below I think it's just not worth it having both variants at all.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >     arch/s390/include/asm/pci_insn.h | 17 +++++++++--------
> > > > > >     arch/s390/pci/pci_insn.c         |  3 ++-
> > > > > >     arch/s390/pci/pci_irq.c          | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > > >     3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci_insn.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci_insn.h
> > > > > > index 61cf9531f68f..5331082fa516 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci_insn.h
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci_insn.h
> > > > > > @@ -98,6 +98,14 @@ struct zpci_fib {
> > > > > >     	u32 gd;
> > > > > >     } __packed __aligned(8);
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > +/* Set Interruption Controls Operation Controls  */
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_ALL		0
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_SINGLE		1
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_DIRECT		4
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_D_ALL		16
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_D_SINGLE		17
> > > > > > +#define	SIC_IRQ_MODE_SET_CPU		18
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >     /* directed interruption information block */
> > > > > >     struct zpci_diib {
> > > > > >     	u32 : 1;
> > > > > > @@ -134,13 +142,6 @@ int __zpci_store(u64 data, u64 req, u64 offset);
> > > > > >     int zpci_store(const volatile void __iomem *addr, u64 data, unsigned long len);
> > > > > >     int __zpci_store_block(const u64 *data, u64 req, u64 offset);
> > > > > >     void zpci_barrier(void);
> > > > > > -int __zpci_set_irq_ctrl(u16 ctl, u8 isc, union zpci_sic_iib *iib);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -static inline int zpci_set_irq_ctrl(u16 ctl, u8 isc)
> > > > > > -{
> > > > > > -	union zpci_sic_iib iib = {{0}};
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -	return __zpci_set_irq_ctrl(ctl, isc, &iib);
> > > > > > -}
> > > > > > +int zpci_set_irq_ctrl(u16 ctl, u8 isc, union zpci_sic_iib *iib);
> > > > 
> > > > Since the __zpci_set_irq_ctrl() was already non static/inline the above
> > > > inline to non-inline change shouldn't make a performance difference.
> > > > 
> > > > Looking at this makes me wonder though. Wouldn't it make sense to just
> > > > have the zpci_set_irq_ctrl() function inline in the header. Its body is
> > > > a single instruction inline asm plus a test_facility(). The latter by
> > > > the way I think also looks rather out of place there considering we
> > > > call zpci_set_irq_ctrl() in the interrupt handler and facilities can't
> > > > go away so it's pretty silly to check for it on every single
> > > > interrupt.. unless I'm totally missing something.
> > > 
> > > This test_facility isn't new to this patch
> > 
> > Yeah I got that part, your patch just made me look.
> > 
> > > , it was added via
> > > 
> > > commit 48070c73058be6de9c0d754d441ed7092dfc8f12
> > > Author: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> > > Date:   Mon Oct 30 14:38:58 2017 +0100
> > > 
> > >       s390/pci: do not require AIS facility
> > > 
> > > It looks like in the past, we would not even initialize zpci at all if
> > > AIS wasn't available.  With this, we initialize PCI but only do the SIC
> > > when we have AIS, which makes sense.
> > 
> > Ah yes I guess that is the something I was missing. I was wondering why
> > that wasn't just tested for during init.
> > 
> > > So for this patch, the sane thing to do is probably just keep the
> > > test_facility() in place and move to header, inline.
> > 
> > Yes sounds good.
> > 
> > > Maybe there's a subsequent optimization to be made (setup a static key
> > > like have_mio vs doing test_facility all the time?)
> > 
> > Yeah, looking again more closely at test_facilities() it's probably not
> > that expensive either I'll do some tests. Maybe we can also just add a
> > comment and a normal unlikely() macro since with this series KVM would
> > also support AIS, correct?
> AIS was already being set as a KVM facility / allowed as QEMU capability 
> before this series, however there was a period of time where QEMU was 
> disabling it (disabled in QEMU 3f2d07b3b01e, enabled again in QEMU 
> a5c8617af691) which I suspect was the impetus for this kernel change; 
> this means that there are older machines that won't have it, but moving 
> forward we should be OK in the standard case.  Of course the kernel 
> should still be able to tolerate the case where AIS is unavailable (old 
> machine, intentionally forced off, etc), so maybe the unlikely indeed 
> makes the most sense.

Thanks for the background!

> 
> As far as a comment for the unlikely I could add something like 'some 
> virtualized environments may have disabled the AIS facility'?

I think we should add the unlikely() and comment in a separate patch
such that this one really doesn't change behavior only the call
signature and export.