linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/17] x86/apic: Support LAPIC timer for Secure AVIC

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bd1869cb-f898-4bb8-883e-cfc5522eca94@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:06:03 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com, Santosh.Shukla@....com,
 Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, David.Kaplan@....com,
 x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
 pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
 huibo.wang@....com, naveen.rao@....com, francescolavra.fl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/17] x86/apic: Support LAPIC timer for Secure AVIC



On 4/3/2025 5:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01 2025 at 17:06, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> In addition, add a static call for apic's update_vector() callback,
>> to configure ALLOWED_IRR for the hypervisor to inject timer interrupt
>> using LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR.
> 
> How is this static call related to the timer vector? It just works with
> the conditional callback. apic_update_vector() is not used in a
> hotpath.
>

No it is not related. I missed the point that static call is only for
callbacks which are used in hotpaths. I thought that they are for
callbacks which are called from multiple call sites. So, when I added
second caller here (first was added in 05/17, in vector.c), I converted
local apic_update_vector() in vector.c to static call.

 
> Even if there is a valid reason for the static call, why is this not
> part of the patch, which adds the update_vector() callback?
> 

Again, this was based on incorrect understanding mentioned above.

> It's well documented that you should not do random unrelated things in
> patches.
> 
> You really try hard to make review a pain.
> 

Apologies for that.


- Neeraj

> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
>