Re: [PATCH 6/9] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kuppuswamy,
	Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
	"kaplan, david" <david.kaplan@amd.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	James E J Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Peter H Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"Hetzelt, Felicitas" <f.hetzelt@tu-berlin.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	pbonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:38:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bl4wfeq1.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACGkMEu+HPBTV81EHOc6zWP7tTgTf4nDaXViUeejmT-Bhp0PEA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 15:07, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > But doen't "irq is disabled" basically mean "we told the hypervisor
>> > to disable the irq"?  What extractly prevents hypervisor from
>> > sending the irq even if guest thinks it disabled it?
>>
>> More generally, can't we for example blow away the
>> indir_desc array that we use to keep the ctx pointers?
>> Won't that be enough?
>
> I'm not sure how it is related to the indirect descriptor but an
> example is that all the current driver will assume:
>
> 1) the interrupt won't be raised before virtio_device_ready()
> 2) the interrupt won't be raised after reset()

If that assumption exists, then you better keep the interrupt line
disabled until virtio_device_ready() has completed and disable it again
before reset() is invoked. That's a question of general robustness and
not really a question of trusted hypervisors and encrypted guests.

>> > > > > > > +void vp_disable_vectors(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > > > > > >  {
>> > > > > > >       struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev = to_vp_device(vdev);
>> > > > > > >       int i;
>> > > > > > > @@ -34,7 +34,20 @@ void vp_synchronize_vectors(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > > > > > >               synchronize_irq(vp_dev->pci_dev->irq);

Don't you want the same change for non-MSI interrupts?

Thanks,

        tglx
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization