linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Using lockless config space accessors based on

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: <877c2smsgp.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 16:00:06 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Zijiang Huang <huangzjsmile@...il.com>, lukas@...ner.de
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, flyingpeng@...cent.com, huangzjsmile@...il.com,
 kerayhuang@...cent.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Using lockless config space accessors based on

On Wed, May 07 2025 at 17:04, Zijiang Huang wrote:
> I think it's safe to make this change for user-space accessors as well,
> since user-space only reads from proc files.

Again. See pci_cfg_access_lock()

>> Why is performance of the user space accessors important?
>> Perhaps because of vfio?
>
> During stability testing on large-scale machines (384+ CPUs), we always                                             > observed that heavy concurrent user-space access to PCI config space triggers 
> kernel softlockups.
>  
> Reproduction method: stress-ng --pci 384 

This is not really interesting as stress-ng is not a real world work
load.

What's the actual real world use case which uses those interfaces so
that the lock becomes an issue?

Thanks,

        tglx