linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 10/13] x86/irq: Extend checks for pending vectors to posted interrupts

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: <BN9PR11MB5276215478903C50701D05498C042@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:25:57 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, LKML
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 Kernel <x86@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra
	<peterz@...radead.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Hansen, Dave"
	<dave.hansen@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
	<hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>
CC: "Luse, Paul E" <paul.e.luse@...el.com>, "Williams, Dan J"
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Raj, Ashok"
	<ashok.raj@...el.com>, "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"jim.harris@...sung.com" <jim.harris@...sung.com>, "a.manzanares@...sung.com"
	<a.manzanares@...sung.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, "Zeng, Guang"
	<guang.zeng@...el.com>, "robert.hoo.linux@...il.com"
	<robert.hoo.linux@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 10/13] x86/irq: Extend checks for pending vectors to
 posted interrupts

> From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 6:31 AM
> 
> During interrupt affinity change, it is possible to have interrupts delivered
> to the old CPU after the affinity has changed to the new one. To prevent lost
> interrupts, local APIC IRR is checked on the old CPU. Similar checks must be
> done for posted MSIs given the same reason.
> 
> Consider the following scenario:
> 	Device		system agent		iommu		memory
> 		CPU/LAPIC
> 1	FEEX_XXXX
> 2			Interrupt request
> 3						Fetch IRTE	->
> 4						->Atomic Swap PID.PIR(vec)
> 						Push to Global
> Observable(GO)
> 5						if (ON*)
> 	i						done;*

there is a stray 'i'

> 						else
> 6							send a notification ->
> 
> * ON: outstanding notification, 1 will suppress new notifications
> 
> If the affinity change happens between 3 and 5 in IOMMU, the old CPU's
> posted
> interrupt request (PIR) could have pending bit set for the vector being moved.

how could affinity change be possible in 3/4 when the cache line is
locked by IOMMU? Strictly speaking it's about a change after 4 and
before 6.