linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] irqchip/gic-v3: support SGI broadcast

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: <CAOUHufbEadyAn0WVdJqYKkUjvMfGXXiLjaApjhaHKg93P8Rymg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 11:31:01 -0600
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@...wei.com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] irqchip/gic-v3: support SGI broadcast

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:15 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:07:45 +0100,
> Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:03 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:22:15 +0100,
> > > Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1407,6 +1418,13 @@ static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > > >        */
> > > >       dsb(ishst);
> > > >
> > > > +     cpumask_copy(&broadcast, cpu_present_mask);
> > >
> > > Why cpu_present_mask? I'd expect that cpu_online_mask should be the
> > > correct mask to use -- we don't IPI offline CPUs, in general.
> >
> > This is exactly because "we don't IPI offline CPUs, in general",
> > assuming "we" means the kernel, not GIC.
> >
> > My interpretation of what the GIC spec says ("0b1: Interrupts routed
> > to all PEs in the system, excluding self") is that it broadcasts IPIs to
> > "cpu_present_mask" (minus the local one). So if the kernel uses
> > "cpu_online_mask" here, GIC would send IPIs to offline CPUs
> > (cpu_present_mask ^ cpu_online_mask), which I don't know whether it's
> > a defined behavior.

Thanks for clarifying.

> Offline CPUs are not known to the kernel.

I assume it wouldn't matter to firmware either, correct? IOW, we
wouldn't cause firmware any trouble by letting GIC send IPIs to
(cpu_present_mask ^ cpu_online_mask), assuming those two masks can be
different on arm64 when hotplug is enabled?

> Most likely, they are either
> powered off, or spending quality time in Secure or Realm mode. Either
> way, this is none of our business.
>
> Your approach would make also the kernel perform pretty inconsistently
> depending on whether CPUs are offline and not.
>
> >
> > But if you actually meant GIC doesn't IPI offline CPUs, then yes, here
> > the kernel should use "cpu_online_mask".
> >
> > > > +     cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &broadcast);
> > > > +     if (cpumask_equal(&broadcast, mask)) {
> > > > +             gic_broadcast_sgi(d->hwirq);
> > > > +             goto done;
> > > > +     }
> > >
> > > So the (valid) case where you would IPI *everyone* is not handled as a
> > > fast path? That seems a missed opportunity.
> >
> > You are right: it should handle that case.
> >
> > > This also seem an like expensive way to do it. How about something
> > > like:
> > >
> > >         int mcnt = cpumask_weight(mask);
> > >         int ocnt = cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> > >         if (mcnt == ocnt)  {
> > >                 /* Broadcast to all CPUs including self */
> >
> > Does the comment mean the following two steps?
> > 1. Broadcasting to everyone else.
> > 2. Sending to self.
>
> Correct.
>
> > My understanding of the "Interrupt Routing Mode" is that it can't
> > broadcast to all CPUs including self, and therefore we need the above
> > two steps, which still can be a lot faster. Is my understanding
> > correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.