linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/32] KVM: s390: pci: enable host forwarding of Adapter Event Notifications

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: <8fdf9da0-8213-f116-5e2f-5767e1d9b80e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:56:36 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        schnelle@...ux.ibm.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 15/32] KVM: s390: pci: enable host forwarding of Adapter
 Event Notifications

Am 07.12.21 um 21:57 schrieb Matthew Rosato:
> In cases where interrupts are not forwarded to the guest via firmware,
> KVM is responsible for ensuring delivery.  When an interrupt presents
> with the forwarding bit, we must process the forwarding tables until
> all interrupts are delivered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
[...]

> +static void aen_host_forward(struct zpci_aift *aift, unsigned long si)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_s390_gisa_interrupt *gi;
> +	struct zpci_gaite *gaite;
> +	struct kvm *kvm;
> +
> +	gaite = (struct zpci_gaite *)aift->gait +
> +		(si * sizeof(struct zpci_gaite));
> +	if (gaite->count == 0)
> +		return;
> +	if (gaite->aisb != 0)
> +		set_bit_inv(gaite->aisbo, (unsigned long *)gaite->aisb);
> +
> +	kvm = kvm_s390_pci_si_to_kvm(aift, si);
> +	if (kvm == 0)
> +		return;
> +	gi = &kvm->arch.gisa_int;
> +
> +	if (!(gi->origin->g1.simm & AIS_MODE_MASK(gaite->gisc)) ||
> +	    !(gi->origin->g1.nimm & AIS_MODE_MASK(gaite->gisc))) {
> +		gisa_set_ipm_gisc(gi->origin, gaite->gisc);
> +		if (hrtimer_active(&gi->timer))
> +			hrtimer_cancel(&gi->timer);
> +		hrtimer_start(&gi->timer, 0, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> +		kvm->stat.aen_forward++;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void aen_process_gait(u8 isc)
> +{
> +	bool found = false, first = true;
> +	union zpci_sic_iib iib = {{0}};
> +	unsigned long si, flags;
> +	struct zpci_aift *aift;
> +
> +	aift = kvm_s390_pci_get_aift();
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&aift->gait_lock, flags);
> +
> +	if (!aift->gait) {
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&aift->gait_lock, flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	for (si = 0;;) {
> +		/* Scan adapter summary indicator bit vector */
> +		si = airq_iv_scan(aift->sbv, si, airq_iv_end(aift->sbv));
> +		if (si == -1UL) {
> +			if (first || found) {
> +				/* Reenable interrupts. */
> +				if (zpci_set_irq_ctrl(SIC_IRQ_MODE_SINGLE, isc,
> +						      &iib))
> +					break;
> +				first = found = false;
> +			} else {
> +				/* Interrupts on and all bits processed */
> +				break;
> +			}
> +			found = false;
> +			si = 0;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		found = true;
> +		aen_host_forward(aift, si);
> +	}
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&aift->gait_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
>   static void gib_alert_irq_handler(struct airq_struct *airq,
>   				  struct tpi_info *tpi_info)
>   {
> +	struct tpi_adapter_info *info = (struct tpi_adapter_info *)tpi_info;
> +
>   	inc_irq_stat(IRQIO_GAL);
> -	process_gib_alert_list();
> +
> +	if (info->forward || info->error)
> +		aen_process_gait(info->isc);
> +	else
> +		process_gib_alert_list();
>   }

Not sure, would it make sense to actually do both after an alert interrupt or do we always get a separate interrupt for event vs. irq?
[..]