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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87lepw9ejx.fsf@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:30:10 +0200 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>, Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com> Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Srivatsa Bhat <srivatsab@...are.com>, "srivatsa@...il.mit.edu" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>, Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>, Vasavi Sirnapalli <vsirnapalli@...are.com>, "er.ajay.kaher@...il.com" <er.ajay.kaher@...il.com>, "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com" <jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com>, "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, "acrn-dev@...ts.projectacrn.org" <acrn-dev@...ts.projectacrn.org>, "helgaas@...nel.org" <helgaas@...nel.org>, "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> writes: > On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote: > >> Not my but rather PCI maintainer's call but IMHO dropping 'const' is >> better, introducing a new global var is our 'last resort' and should be >> avoided whenever possible. Alternatively, you can add a >> raw_pci_ext_ops_preferred() function checking somethin within 'struct >> hypervisor_x86' but I'm unsure if it's better. >> >> Also, please check Alex' question/suggestion. > > Here is my take (and Ajay knows probably more than me): > > Looking briefly on MCFG, I do not see a clean way of using the ACPI table. > The two options are either to use a reserved field (which who knows, might > be used one day) or some OEM ID. I am also not familiar with > PCI_COMMAND.MEMORY=0, so Ajay can hopefully give some answer about that. > > Anyhow, I understand (although not relate) to the objection for a new global > variable. How about explicitly calling this hardware bug a “bug” and using > the proper infrastructure? Calling it explicitly a bug may even push whoever > can to resolve it. > > IOW, how about doing something along the lines of (not tested): > Works for me. Going forward, the intention shoud be to also clear the bug on other x86 hypervisors, e.g. we test modern Hyper-V versions and if MMIO works well we clear it, we test modern QEMU/KVM setups and if MMIO works introduce a feature bit somewhere and also clear the bug in the guest when the bit is set. -- Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists