linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] genirq: introduce handle_fasteoi_edge

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, 14 Apr 2023 12:25:51 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Yipeng Zou <zouyipeng@...wei.com>
Cc:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <samuel@...lland.org>,
        <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>, <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        <apatel@...tanamicro.com>, <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <chris.zjh@...wei.com>,
        <liaochang1@...wei.com>, James Gowans <jgowans@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] genirq: introduce handle_fasteoi_edge_irq flow handler

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:14:17 +0000,
Yipeng Zou <zouyipeng@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> Recently, We have a LPI migration issue on the ARM SMP platform.
> 
> For example, NIC device generates MSI and sends LPI to CPU0 via ITS,
> meanwhile irqbalance running on CPU1 set irq affinity of NIC to CPU1,
> the next interrupt will be sent to CPU2, due to the state of irq is
> still in progress, kernel does not end up performing irq handler on
> CPU2, which results in some userland service timeouts, the sequence
> of events is shown as follows:
> 
> NIC                     CPU0                    CPU1
> 
> Generate IRQ#1          READ_IAR
>                         Lock irq_desc
>                         Set IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
>                         Unlock irq_desc
>                                                 Lock irq_desc
>                                                 Change LPI Affinity
>                                                 Unlock irq_desc
>                         Call irq_handler
> Generate IRQ#2
>                                                 READ_IAR
>                                                 Lock irq_desc
>                                                 Check IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
>                                                 Unlock irq_desc
>                                                 Return from interrupt#2
>                         Lock irq_desc
>                         Clear IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
>                         Unlock irq_desc
>                         return from interrupt#1
> 
> For this scenario, The IRQ#2 will be lost. This does cause some exceptions.

Please see my reply to James at [1]. I'd appreciate if you could give
that patch a go, which I expect to be a better avenue to fix what is
effectively a GIC architecture defect.

Thanks,

	M.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/86pm89kyyt.wl-maz@kernel.org/

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.