linux-kernel - Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v6 3/3] xen/privcmd: Add new syscall to get gsi from irq

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: Fri, 10 May 2024 13:27:37 +0200
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@....com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, Roger Pau Monné
 <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
 "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
 "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
 "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v6 3/3] xen/privcmd: Add new syscall to get gsi
 from irq

On 10.05.24 12:32, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2024/5/10 18:21, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 10.05.24 12:13, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>> On 2024/5/10 17:53, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>> On 10.05.24 11:06, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/5/10 14:46, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.04.24 05:36, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    info->type = IRQT_PIRQ;
>>>>> I am considering whether I need to use a new type(like IRQT_GSI) here to distinguish with IRQT_PIRQ, because function restore_pirqs will process all IRQT_PIRQ.
>>>>
>>>> restore_pirqs() already considers gsi == 0 to be not GSI related. Isn't this
>>>> enough?
>>> No, it is not enough.
>>> xen_pvh_add_gsi_irq_map adds the mapping of gsi and irq, but the value of gsi is not 0,
>>> once restore_pirqs is called, it will do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq for that gsi, but in pvh dom0, we shouldn't do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq.
>>
>> Okay, then add a new flag to info->u.pirq.flags for that purpose?
> I feel like adding "new flag to info->u.pirq.flags" is not as good as adding " new type to info->type".
> Because in restore_pirqs, it considers " info->type != IRQT_PIRQ", if adding " new flag to info->u.pirq.flags", we need to add a new condition in restore_pirqs.
> And actually this mapping(gsi and irq of pvh) doesn't have pirq, so it is not suitable to add to u.pirq.flags.

Does this mean there is no other IRQT_PIRQ related activity relevant for those
GSIs/IRQs? In that case I agree to add IRQT_GSI.

Juergen