On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 15:07, Jason Wang wrote:

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+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@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization