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:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:48:14 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...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

Hi Kevin,

On 3/16/2023 4:52 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> 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.

Thank you. Yes, if I understand correctly MSI and MSI-X error handling
can become consistent. I'll modify patch 5 to remove
vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated().

Reinette