linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchipi/gic-v4: Ensure accessing the correct RD when and writing INVLPIR

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: <87zg4ypmlq.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:35:45 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        "open list:IRQCHIP DRIVERS" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>, <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>,
        <tangnianyao@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchipi/gic-v4: Ensure accessing the correct RD when and writing INVLPIR

On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:01:59 +0100,
Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 2023/5/16 18:15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 04:57:17 +0100,
> > Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com> wrote:
> >>> Wouldn't it be nice if irq_to_cpuid() could work out whether it is
> >>> dealing with a LPI or a VLPI like it does today, but also directly
> >>> with a VPE? We could then use the same code as derect_lpi_inv(). I
> >>> came up with this the hack below, which is totally untested as I don't
> >>> have access to GICv4.1 HW.
> >>> 
> >>> Could you give it a spin?
> >> Nice, I will test it as soon as possible.
> > Did you ever managed to test this?
> Sorry,I've only been coordinating the GICv4.1 environment in the last
> few days. I have tested it with GICv4 many times, and it doesn't recur.
> However, another call trace occurs with GICv4.1 when the device driver
> is loaded in Guest. I haven't found out why. Maybe you can help analyze it.

I also went back to my patch, and it is a bit bogus (it doesn't even
compile to start with). I've now posted new version[1] that should at
least fix the bug you initially reported.

Can you please test it and reply to it?

Thanks,

	M.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230617073242.3199746-1-maz@kernel.org

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