linux-kernel - RE: [patch V2 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent

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: <BN9PR11MB52768F0E5B9A4D8E2CF9C5578C0C9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:57:25 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>,
        Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [patch V2 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent_ops

> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 10:38 PM
> 
> +/**
> + * msi_parent_init_dev_msi_info - Delegate initialization of device MSI info
> down
> + *				  in the domain hierarchy
> + * @dev:		The device for which the domain should be created
> + * @domain:		The domain in the hierarchy this op is being called on
> + * @msi_parent_domain:	The IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_PARENT
> domain for the child to
> + *			be created
> + * @msi_child_info:	The MSI domain info of the
> IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_DEVICE
> + *			domain to be created
> + *
> + * Return: true on success, false otherwise
> + *
> + * This is the most complex problem of per device MSI domains and the
> + * underlying interrupt domain hierarchy:
> + *
> + * The device domain to be initialized requests the broadest feature set
> + * possible and the underlying domain hierarchy puts restrictions on it.
> + *
> + * That's trivial for a simple parent->child relationship, but it gets
> + * interesting with an intermediate domain: root->parent->child.  The
> + * intermediate 'parent' can expand the capabilities which the 'root'
> + * domain is providing. So that creates a classic hen and egg problem:
> + * Which entity is doing the restrictions/expansions?
> + *
> + * One solution is to let the root domain handle the initialization that's
> + * why there is the @domain and the @msi_parent_domain pointer.
 
This is the part which I don't quite understand (sorry with limited knowledge
in this area).

In concept a hierarchical model has restrictions added up when moving
down to lower layers i.e. presumably the root domain decides the minimal
supported capabilities. In this case there is no need of a real parent pointer
as long as every domain in the stack incrementally adds its restrictions to
info->flags.

I can see why this is required for x86 given that MULTI_MSI is supported
only with IR. and we cannot make vector domain inclusively claiming
MULTI_MSI since it's completely broken when the vector domain becomes
the parent itself, in absence of IR.

Just be curious whether this intermediate-parent-deciding-restrictions
is generic instead of x86 specific, e.g. is it possible to have a 4-layers
hierarchy where the root parent wants to check both two intermediate
parents?

Thanks
Kevin