linux-kernel - [Question about gic vmovp cmd] Consider adding VINVALL after VMOVP

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ba387464-59d5-0639-1d05-84bb7e764231@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 14:04:34 +0800
From:   wangwudi <wangwudi@...ilicon.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Question about gic vmovp cmd] Consider adding VINVALL after VMOVP

Hi Marc,

During vpe migration, VMOVP needs to be executed.
If the vpe is migrated for the first time, especially before it is scheduled for the first time, there may be some unusual hanppens over kexec.
We might consider adding a VINVALL cmd after VMOVP to increase robustness.

@@ -1327,6 +1327,7 @@ static void its_send_vmovp(struct its_vpe *vpe)

                desc.its_vmovp_cmd.col = &its->collections[col_id];
                its_send_single_vcommand(its, its_build_vmovp_cmd, &desc);
+               its_send_vinvall(its, vpe);
        }

Do you think it's all right?

Thanks,
Wudi