linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] virtio_blk: should not use IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED in init

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, 28 Sep 2022 11:45:45 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Angus Chen <angus.chen@...uarmicro.com>, jasowang@...hat.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Liming Wu <liming.wu@...uarmicro.com>, stefanha@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] virtio_blk: should not use IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED in
 init_rq

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:47:20PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The log :
> > "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 0. 00000080 (virtio418) vs. 00015a00 (timer)"
> > was print because of the irq 0 is used by timer exclusive,and when
> > vp_find_vqs called vp_find_vqs_msix and return false twice,then it will
> > call vp_find_vqs_intx for the last try.
> > Because vp_dev->pci_dev->irq is zero,so it will be request irq 0 with
> > flag IRQF_SHARED.
> 
> First this is a bug. We can fix that so it will fail more cleanly.
> 
> We should check pci_dev->pin and if 0 do not try to use INT#x
> at all.
> It will still fail, just with a nicer backtrace.

How do we end up with a pci_dev without a valid PIN?  Btw, that whole
vp_find_* code looks extremely fucked up to me.  The whole point of
pci_alloc_irq_vectors* API is that it keeps drivers from poling into
details of MSI-X v MSI vs INTX.

> - because of auto affinity, we try to reserve an interrupt on all CPUs
> - as there are 512 devices with a single vector per VQ we would
>   have no issue as they would be spread between CPUs,
>   but allocating on all CPUs fails.
> 
> 
> I don't think the issue should be fixed at blk level - it is not
> blk specifix - but yes this looks like a problem.
> Christoph, any idea?

I think this goes into the low-level interrupt vector allocator.  I think
Thomas is still the expert on it.