On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:38:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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
started not completed. device is allowed to send
config interrupts right after DRIVER_OK status is set by
virtio_device_ready.
> 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.
We can do this for some MSIX interrupts, sure. Not for shared interrupts though.
> >> > > > > > > +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?
We can't disable them - these are shared.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
