On 01/05/15 14:39, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 05/01/2015 06:46 AM, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 29/04/15 22:10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> When a guest is resumed, the hypervisor may change event channel >>> assignments. If this happens and the guest uses 2-level events it >>> is possible for the interrupt to be claimed by wrong VCPU since >>> cpu_evtchn_mask bits may be stale. This can happen even though >>> evtchn_2l_bind_to_cpu() attempts to clear old bits: irq_info that >>> is passed in is not necessarily the original one (from pre-migration >>> times) but instead is freshly allocated during resume and so any >>> information about which CPU the channel was bound to is lost. >>> >>> Thus we should clear the mask during resume. >>> >>> We also need to make sure that bits for xenstore and console channels >>> are set when these two subsystems are resumed. While rebind_evtchn_irq() >>> (which is invoked for both of them on a resume) calls >>> irq_set_affinity(), >>> the latter will in fact postpone setting affinity until handling the >>> interrupt. But because cpu_evtchn_mask will have bits for these two >>> cleared we won't be able to take the interrupt. >>> >>> With that in mind, we need to bind those two channels explicitly in >>> rebind_evtchn_irq(). We will keep irq_set_affinity() so that we have a >>> pass through generic irq affinity code later, in case something needs >>> to be updated there as well. >>> >>> (Also replace cpumask_of(0) with cpumask_of(info->cpu) in >>> rebind_evtchn_irq(): it should be set to zero in preceding >>> xen_irq_info_evtchn_setup().) >> [...] >>> @@ -1279,8 +1280,16 @@ void rebind_evtchn_irq(int evtchn, int irq) >>> mutex_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock); >>> - /* new event channels are always bound to cpu 0 */ >>> - irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(0)); >>> + bind_vcpu.port = evtchn; >>> + bind_vcpu.vcpu = info->cpu; >>> + if (HYPERVISOR_event_channel_op(EVTCHNOP_bind_vcpu, &bind_vcpu) >>> == 0) >>> + bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, info->cpu); >> Isn't the hypercall is unnecessary since this is a new event channel >> it's already bound to VCPU 0 and info->cpu == 0? >> >> I think only the bind_evtchn_to_cpu() call is needed here. > > > True. However, I added the hypercall here to make the routine > independent of what happens in other parts (hypervisor binding new > channels to cpu0, xen_irq_info_evtchn_setup() initializing to zero, > etc.). This way, if either of these two change in the future (unlikely, > but possible) this routine will still work as expected.
New event channels being bound to VCPU0 is part of the ABI and cannot change, so I've taken the hypercall and its dodgy looking error path out. I've applied this series to for-linus-4.1b but before I push, do any of these need to be tagged for stable? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
