linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/16 v6] PCI: Linux kernel SR-IOV support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:49:19 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	H L <swdevyid@...oo.com>
Cc:	Yu Zhao <yu.zhao@...el.com>, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	grundler@...isc-linux.org, achiang@...com, matthew@....cx,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16 v6] PCI: Linux kernel SR-IOV support


A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:41:53AM -0800, H L wrote:
> I have not modified any existing drivers, but instead I threw together
> a bare-bones module enabling me to make a call to pci_iov_register()
> and then poke at an SR-IOV adapter's /sys entries for which no driver
> was loaded.
> 
> It appears from my perusal thus far that drivers using these new
> SR-IOV patches will require modification; i.e. the driver associated
> with the Physical Function (PF) will be required to make the
> pci_iov_register() call along with the requisite notify() function.
> Essentially this suggests to me a model for the PF driver to perform
> any "global actions" or setup on behalf of VFs before enabling them
> after which VF drivers could be associated.

Where would the VF drivers have to be associated?  On the "pci_dev"
level or on a higher one?

Will all drivers that want to bind to a "VF" device need to be
rewritten?

> I have so far only seen Yu Zhao's "7-patch" set.  I've not yet looked
> at his subsequently tendered "15-patch" set so I don't know what has
> changed.    The hardware/firmware implementation for any given SR-IOV
> compatible device, will determine the extent of differences required
> between a PF driver and a VF driver.

Yeah, that's what I'm worried/curious about.  Without seeing the code
for such a driver, how can we properly evaluate if this infrastructure
is the correct one and the proper way to do all of this?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/