Il 26/11/2013 14:18, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>
>> I don't think a workqueue is even needed. You just need to use call_rcu
>> to free "old" after releasing kvm->irq_lock.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Can this cause an interrupt to be delivered to the wrong (old) vcpu?
No, this would be exactly the same code that is running now:
mutex_lock(&kvm->irq_lock);
old = kvm->irq_routing;
kvm_irq_routing_update(kvm, new);
mutex_unlock(&kvm->irq_lock);
synchronize_rcu();
kfree(old);
return 0;
Except that the kfree would run in the call_rcu kernel thread instead of
the vcpu thread. But the vcpus already see the new routing table after
the rcu_assign_pointer that is in kvm_irq_routing_update.
There is still the problem that Gleb pointed out, though.
Paolo
> The way Linux sets interrupt affinity, it cannot, since changing the
> affinity is (IIRC) done in the interrupt handler, so the next interrupt
> cannot be in flight and thus pick up the old interrupt routing table.
>
> However it may be vulnerable in other ways.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
