linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 0/8] vfio/pci: Support dynamic allocation of MSI-X interrupts

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:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:52:32 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "darwi@...utronix.de" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com" <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/8] vfio/pci: Support dynamic allocation of MSI-X
 interrupts

> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM
> 
> > Based on above, there really can never be an error if we expect the
> > device to work, so I think there's a misread of the current status.
> > Dynamic MSI-X support should simply reduce the disruption and chance
> > of lost interrupts at the device, but the points where we risk that
> > the host cannot provide the configuration we need are the same.
> 
> Thank you very much Alex. In this case, please do consider this
> submission as a submission for inclusion. I'd be happy to resubmit
> without the "RFC" prefix if that is preferred.
> 

With that do we still want to keep the error behavior for MSI?

If no patch5 can be simplified e.g. no need of vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated()
and MSI/MSI-X error behaviors become consistent.