linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] KVM: arm64: Improvements to LPI injection

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:40:27 -0800
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] KVM: arm64: Improvements to LPI injection

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:43:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:32:37 +0000,
> Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> > For full details on the what/why, please see the cover letter in v1.
> > 
> > Apologies for the delay on v2, I wanted to spend some time to get a
> > microbenchmark in place to slam the ITS code pretty hard, and based on
> > the results I'm glad I did.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Buglets and potential improvements aside, I like the smell of this. At
> least the first handful of patches could easily be taken as a separate
> improvement series.
> 
> Let me know how you'd like to play this.

Yeah, I think there's 3 independent series here if we want to take the
initial improvements:

 - Address contention around vgic_get_irq() / vgic_put_irq() with the
   first 10 patches. Appears there is violent agreement these are good
   to go.

 - Changing out the translation cache into a per-ITS xarray

 - A final series cleaning up a lot of the warts we have in LPI
   management, like vgic_copy_lpi_list(). I believe we can get rid of
   the lpi_list_lock as well, but this needs to be ordered after the
   first 2.

I'd really like to de-risk the performance changes from the cleanups, as
I'm convinced they're going to have their own respective piles of bugs.

How does that sound?

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver