On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 15:07, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
