lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 01/17] shm-signal: shared-memory signals
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>> +struct shm_signal_irq {
>>>> + __u8 enabled;
>>>> + __u8 pending;
>>>> + __u8 dirty;
>>>> +};
>>>>
>>> Some ABIs may choose to pad this, suggest explicit padding.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, good idea. What is the official way to do this these days? Are
>> GCC pragmas allowed?
>>
>>
>
> I just add a __u8 pad[5] in such cases.

Oh, duh. Dumb question. I was getting confused with "pack", not pad. :)

>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct shm_signal;
>>>> +
>>>> +struct shm_signal_ops {
>>>> + int (*inject)(struct shm_signal *s);
>>>> + void (*fault)(struct shm_signal *s, const char *fmt, ...);
>>>>
>>> Eww. Must we involve strings and printf formats?
>>>
>>
>> This is still somewhat of a immature part of the design. Its supposed
>> to be used so that by default, its a panic. But on the host side, we
>> can do something like inject a machine-check. That way malicious/broken
>> guests cannot (should not? ;) be able to take down the host. Note today
>> I do not map this to anything other than the default panic, so this
>> needs some love.
>>
>> But given the asynchronous nature of the fault, I want to be sure we
>> have decent accounting to avoid bug reports like "silent MCE kills the
>> guest" ;) At least this way, we can log the fault string somewhere to
>> get a clue.
>>
>
> I see.
>
> This raises a point I've been thinking of - the symmetrical nature of
> the API vs the assymetrical nature of guest/host or user/kernel
> interfaces. This is most pronounced in ->inject(); in the host->guest
> direction this is async (host can continue processing while the guest
> is handling the interrupt), whereas in the guest->host direction it is
> synchronous (the guest is blocked while the host is processing the
> call, unless the host explicitly hands off work to a different thread).

Note that this is exactly what I do (though it is device specific).
venet-tap has a ioq_notifier registered on its "rx" ring (which is the
tx-ring for the guest) that simply calls ioq_notify_disable() (which
calls shm_signal_disable() under the covers) and it wakes its
rx-thread. This all happens in the context of the hypercall, which then
returns and allows the vcpu to re-enter guest mode immediately.


>
>


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-01 14:13    [W:0.390 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site