Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/4] VMX: Assign the right value to 'NDST' field in a concern case

["Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:00 PM
> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx;
> george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>; xen-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx; keir@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] VMX: Assign the right value to 'NDST' field in a
> concern case
> 
> >>> On 26.05.16 at 15:39, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Normally, in vmx_cpu_block() 'NDST' filed should have the same
> > value with 'dest' or 'MASK_INSR(dest, PI_xAPIC_NDST_MASK)' depending
> > on whether x2apic is enabled. However, in the following scenario,
> > 'NDST' has different value:
> >
> > 'vcpu_block' hook gets assigned in vmx_pi_hooks_assign(), but all
> > other three PI hooks have not been assigned or not been excuted yet.
> > And during this interval, we are running in vmx_vcpu_block(), then
> > 'NDST' may have different value.
> 
> How about simply assigning vcpu_block last? Or alternatively
> holding pi_blocking_list_lock around all four assignments? Or
> (maybe in addition to one of these) writing something sensible in
> vmx_pi_hooks_assign() before doing the hook assignments? 

The problem is vmx_vcpu_block() can still get called first, since
the other ones might not get called yet.

> Of course much depends on whether the ASSERT() you replace was
> meant just as a sanity check, or instead logic elsewhere relies on
> NDST having the right value already before getting into
> vmx_vcpu_block().

The point is we need to make sure NDST have the right value
after leaving vmx_vcpu_block().

> 
> Also, rather than saying twice that NDST has a different value in
> that case, how about stating what exact value it has then and
> why that's not what we want/need? (Same goes for the code
> comment then.)

Sure, will add this in the next version.

> 
> > This patch fix this concern case.
> 
> Here as well as in earlier patches - do you perhaps mean "corner
> case"?

Sorry for the typo.

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel