linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Implement a virtio GPU transport

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:	Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:22:28 +0000
From:	Ian Molton <ian.molton@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
CC:	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Alon Levy <alevy@...hat.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Implement a virtio GPU transport

Ping ?

On 05/11/10 18:05, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 03/11/10 18:17, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010 01:03 PM, Ian Molton wrote:
>
>> Why is it better than using virtio-serial?
>
> For one thing, it enforces the PID in kernel so the guests processes
> cant screw each other over by forging the PID passed to qemu.
>
>>> My current patch touches a tiny part of the qemu sources. It works
>>> today.
>>
>> But it's not at all mergable in the current form. If you want to do the
>> work of getting it into a mergable state (cleaning up the coding style,
>> moving it to hw/, etc.) than I'm willing to consider it. But I don't
>> think a custom virtio transport is the right thing to do here.
>
> Hm, I thought I'd indented everything in qemus odd way... Is there a
> codingstyle document or a checkpatch-like tool for qemu?
>
> I'm happy to make the code meet qemus coding style.
>
>> However, if you want something that Just Works with the least amount of
>> code possible, just split it into a separate process and we can stick it
>> in a contrib/ directory or something.
>
> I dont see what splitting it into a seperate process buys us given we
> still need the virtio-gl driver in order to enforce the PID. The virtio
> driver is probably quite a bit more efficient at marshalling the data
> too, given that it was designed alongside the userspace code.
>
>>>> I
>>>> think we can consider integrating it into QEMU (or at least simplifying
>>>> the execution of the backend) but integrating into QEMU is going to
>>>> require an awful lot of the existing code to be rewritten.
>
> Why? aside from codingstyle, whats massively wrong with it thats going
> to demand a total rewrite?
>
>>>> Keeping it
>>>> separate has the advantage of allowing something to Just Work as an
>>>> interim solution as we wait for proper support in Spice.
>
> Why does keeping it seperate make life easier? qemu is in a git repo.
> when the time comes, if it reall is a total replacement, git-rm will
> nuke it all.
>
>>> I dont know why you think integrating it into qemu is hard? I've
>>> already done it.
>>
>> Adding a file that happens to compile as part of qemu even though it
>> doesn't actually integrate with qemu in any meaningful way is not
>> integrating. That's just build system manipulation.
>
> Uh? Either it compiles and works as part of qemu (which it does) or it
> doesnt. How is that not integrated? I've added it to the configure
> script too.
>
> -Ian
>

--
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/