linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue

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: <20221227043148-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Dec 2022 04:38:25 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        maxime.coquelin@...hat.com, alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com,
        eperezma@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 在 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > But device is still going and will later use the buffers.
> > > > 
> > > > Same for timeout really.
> > > Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to sleep.
> > > If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use,
> > that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc,
> > a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome.
> 
> 
> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used.
> 
> 
> > 
> > things we should be careful to address then:
> > 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is stuck
> >     in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace.
> >     E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL?
> >     We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results
> >     and to make sure policy is consistent.
> 
> 
> That's fine, will consider this.
> 
> 
> > 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in hypervisor,
> >     programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup
> >     lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not nice.
> >     let's poll for a bit before waiting?
> 
> 
> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll. And
> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the
> chance to run.

Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once
after kick.

> 
> > 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about
> >     other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this
> >     introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them please.
> 
> 
> The current code did:
> 
> 1) check for vq->broken
> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING()
> 
> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be fine.
> 
> Thanks


BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good
idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error.

> 
> > 
> >