lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] uio_pci_generic: add MSI/MSI-X support
    On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:43:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
    > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:20:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:27:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:06:07PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > > > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:44:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > On 10/08/2015 12:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:46:30AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > > > > > > >>
    > > > > > > >>On 10/08/2015 10:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > > > > > > >>>On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:33:45AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > > > > > > >>>>It is good practice to defend against root oopsing the kernel, but in some
    > > > > > > >>>>cases it cannot be achieved.
    > > > > > > >>>Absolutely. That's one of the issues with these patches. They don't even
    > > > > > > >>>try where it's absolutely possible.
    > > > > > > >>>
    > > > > > > >>Are you referring to blocking the maps of the msix BAR areas?
    > > > > > > >For example. There are more. I listed some of the issues on the mailing
    > > > > > > >list, and I might have missed some. VFIO has code to address all this,
    > > > > > > >people should share code to avoid duplication, or at least read it
    > > > > > > >to understand the issues.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > All but one of those are unrelated to the patch that adds msix support.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > They are related because msix support enables bus mastering. Without it
    > > > > > device is passive and can't harm anyone. With it, suddently you need to
    > > > > > be very careful with the device to avoid corrupting kernel memory.
    > > > > >
    > > > > Most (if not all) uio_pci_generic users enable pci bus mastering. The
    > > > > fact that they do that without even tainting the kernel like the patch
    > > > > does make current situation much worse that with the patch.
    > > >
    > > > It isn't worse. It's a sane interface. Whoever enables bus mastering
    > > > must be careful. If userspace enables bus mastering then userspace
    > > > needs to be very careful with the device to avoid corrupting kernel
    > > > memory. If kernel does it, it's kernel's responsibility.
    > > >
    > > Although this definition of sanity sounds strange to me, but lets
    > > flow with it for the sake of this email: would it be OK if proposed
    > > interface refused to work if bus mastering is not already enabled by
    > > userspace?
    >
    > An interface could be acceptable if there's a fallback where it
    > works without BM but slower (e.g. poll pending bits).
    >
    OK.

    > But not the proposed one.
    >
    Why? Greg is against ioctl interface so it will be reworked, by besides
    that what is wrong with the concept of binding msi-x interrupt to
    eventfd?

    > Really, there's more to making msi-x work with
    > userspace drivers than this patch. As I keep telling people, you would
    > basically reimplement vfio/pci. Go over it, and see for yourself.
    > Almost everything it does is relevant for msi-x. It's just wrong to
    > duplicate so much code.
    >
    The patch is tested and works with msi-x. Restricting access to msi-x
    registers that vfio does is not relevant here.

    --
    Gleb.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-10-08 19:21    [W:4.557 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site