On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:13:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner
wrote:> On Tue, Mar 29 2022 at 10:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:35:21AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We are trying to fix the driver since at the moment it does not
> > have the dev->ok flag at all.
> >
> > And I suspect virtio is not alone in that.
> > So it would have been nice if there was a standard flag
> > replacing the driver-specific dev->ok above, and ideally
> > would also handle the case of an interrupt triggering
> > too early by deferring the interrupt until the flag is set.
> >
> > And in fact, it does kind of exist: IRQF_NO_AUTOEN, and you would call
> > enable_irq instead of dev->ok = true, except
> > - it doesn't work with affinity managed IRQs
> > - it does not work with shared IRQs
> >
> > So using dev->ok as you propose above seems better at this point.
>
> Unless there is a big enough amount of drivers which could make use of a
> generic mechanism for that.
>
> >> If any driver does this in the wrong order, then the driver is
> >> broken.
> >
> > I agree, however:
> > $ git grep synchronize_irq `git grep -l request_irq drivers/net/`|wc
-l
> > 113
> > $ git grep -l request_irq drivers/net/|wc -l
> > 397
> >
> > I suspect there are more drivers which in theory need the
> > synchronize_irq dance but in practice do not execute it.
>
> That really depends on when the driver requests the interrupt, when
> it actually enables the interrupt in the device itself
This last point does not matter since we are talking about protecting
against buggy/malicious devices. They can inject the interrupt anyway
even if driver did not configure it.
> and how the
> interrupt service routine works.
>
> So just doing that grep dance does not tell much. You really have to do
> a case by case analysis.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
I agree. In fact, at least for network the standard approach is to
request interrupts in the open call, virtio net is unusual
in doing it in probe. We should consider changing that.
Jason?
--
MST