linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic

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: <20220120133322.GA13904@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:33:22 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com,
        alexandru.elisei@....com, anup.patel@....com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
        borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
        chenhuacai@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com,
        joro@...tes.org, luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        seanjc@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:10:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/19/22 11:58, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > +	 * TODO: is there a barrier which ensures that pending interrupts are
> > +	 * recognised? Currently this just hopes that the CPU takes any pending
> > +	 * interrupts between the enable and disable.
> > +	 */
> > +	local_irq_enable();
> > +	local_irq_disable();
> 
> It's okay, there is irq_enable_hazard() but it's automatically included in
> arch_local_irq_enable().

As with the riscv case, I'm not sure whether that ensures that a pending
IRQ is actually recognized and taken.

Since there's also an irq_disable_hazard() it looks like that's there to
ensure the IRQ mask is updated in program order, rather than
guaranteeing that a pending IRQ is necessarily taken while IRQs are
unmasked.

In practice, I suspect it probably does, but it'd be good if someone
from the MIPS side could say something either way.

Thanks,
Mark.