[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240308100318.0794f51a.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:03:18 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "eric.auger@...hat.com"
<eric.auger@...hat.com>, "clg@...hat.com" <clg@...hat.com>, "Chatre,
Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] vfio/pci: Disable auto-enable of exclusive INTx IRQ
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:23:21 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:
> > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 4:24 AM
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:39:16 +0000
> > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:15 AM
> > > >
> > > > Currently for devices requiring masking at the irqchip for INTx, ie.
> > > > devices without DisINTx support, the IRQ is enabled in request_irq()
> > > > and subsequently disabled as necessary to align with the masked status
> > > > flag. This presents a window where the interrupt could fire between
> > > > these events, resulting in the IRQ incrementing the disable depth twice.
> > > > This would be unrecoverable for a user since the masked flag prevents
> > > > nested enables through vfio.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, invert the logic using IRQF_NO_AUTOEN such that exclusive INTx
> > > > is never auto-enabled, then unmask as required.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 89e1f7d4c66d ("vfio: Add PCI device driver")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > CC stable?
> >
> > I've always found that having a Fixes: tag is sufficient to get picked
> > up for stable, so I typically don't do both. If it helps out someone's
> > process I'd be happy to though. Thanks,
> >
>
> According to "Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst":
>
> Note: Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules
> process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org on all stable
> patch candidates. For more information, please read
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
>
> Probably it's fine as long as the stable kernel maintainers don't complain. 😊
I think the stable maintainers are far more aggressive than the
documentation would suggest, but it doesn't hurt to include the Cc,
I'll add it next version. Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists