Message ID | 20201109064128.3908-1-jgross@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | XSA-343 followup patches | expand |
On 09.11.2020 07:41, Juergen Gross wrote: > The patches for XSA-343 produced some fallout, especially the event > channel locking has shown to be problematic. > > Patch 1 is targeting fifo event channels for avoiding any races for the > case that the fifo queue has been changed for a specific event channel. > > The second patch is modifying the per event channel locking scheme in > order to avoid deadlocks and problems due to the event channel lock > having been changed to require IRQs off by the XSA-343 patches. > > Changes in V5: > - moved evtchn_write_[un]lock() to event_channel.c (Jan Beulich) > - used normal read_lock() in some cases (Jan Beulich) > > Changes in V4: > - switched to real rwlock > > Changes in V3: > - addressed comments > > Juergen Gross (2): > xen/events: access last_priority and last_vcpu_id together > xen/evtchn: rework per event channel lock Didn't you mean to add a 3rd patch here to drop the 2nd call to xsm_evtchn_send() again? Jan
On 09.11.20 13:00, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.2020 07:41, Juergen Gross wrote: >> The patches for XSA-343 produced some fallout, especially the event >> channel locking has shown to be problematic. >> >> Patch 1 is targeting fifo event channels for avoiding any races for the >> case that the fifo queue has been changed for a specific event channel. >> >> The second patch is modifying the per event channel locking scheme in >> order to avoid deadlocks and problems due to the event channel lock >> having been changed to require IRQs off by the XSA-343 patches. >> >> Changes in V5: >> - moved evtchn_write_[un]lock() to event_channel.c (Jan Beulich) >> - used normal read_lock() in some cases (Jan Beulich) >> >> Changes in V4: >> - switched to real rwlock >> >> Changes in V3: >> - addressed comments >> >> Juergen Gross (2): >> xen/events: access last_priority and last_vcpu_id together >> xen/evtchn: rework per event channel lock > > Didn't you mean to add a 3rd patch here to drop the 2nd call to > xsm_evtchn_send() again? I wanted to that after this series has been accepted, but I can include it here, of course. Juergen