linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] virtio-pci: implement synchronize

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: <CACGkMEuUXAUK-8GnBWgij5TOSN0ct_gmxnDQEcovRmTLK6bv4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:53:43 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] virtio-pci: implement synchronize_vqs()

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12 2022, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:27:41 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >> My main concern is that we would need to synchronize against a single
> >> interrupt that covers all kinds of I/O interrupts, not just a single
> >> device...
> >>
> >
> > Could we synchronize on struct airq_info's lock member? If we were
> > to grab all of these that might be involved...
>
> Hm, that could possibly narrow the sync down to a subset, which seems
> better. For devices still using classic interrupts, per-device sync
> would be easy.
>
> >
> > AFAIU for the synchronize implementation we need a lock or a set of locks
> > that contain all the possible vring_interrupt() calls with the queuues
> > that belong to the given device as a critical section. That way, one
> > has the acquire's and release's in place so that the vrign_interrupt()
> > either guaranteed to finish before the change of driver_ready is
> > guaranteed to be complete, or it is guaranteed to see the change.
> >
> > In any case, I guess we should first get clear on the first part. I.e.
> > when do we want to allow host->guest notifications.
>
> Also, whether we just care about vring interrupts, or general device
> interrupts (not sure if a config change interrupt may also trigger
> things we do not want to trigger?)

I think only vring interrupts, since the config interrupt hardening is
done via 22b7050a024d7 ("virtio: defer config changed notifications")

Thanks

>