linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 RFC] virtio-spec: flexible configuration layout

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:	Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:39:13 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@...il.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	avi@...hat.com, penberg@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 RFC] virtio-spec: flexible configuration layout

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:57:28 +0200, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 22:52 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:24:47PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > > It'll be a bit harder deprecating it in the future.
>> >
>> > Harder than ... what ?
>>
>> Harder than allowing devices not to present it at all if new layout
>> config is used. Right now the simple implementation is to use MMIO for
>> config and device specific, and let it fallback to legacy for ISR and
>> notifications (and therefore, this is probably how everybody will
>> implement it), which means that when you do want to deprecate legacy,
>> there will be extra work to be done then, instead of doing it now.
>
> Indeed, I'd like to see two changes to your proposal:
>
> (1) It should be all or nothing.  If a driver can find the virtio header
>    capability, it should only use the capabilties.  Otherwise, it
>    should fall back to legacy.  Your draft suggests a mix is possible;
>    I prefer a clean failure (ie. one day don't present a BAR 0 *at
>    all*, so ancient drivers just fail to load.).
>
> (2) There's no huge win in keeping the same layout.  Let's make some
>    cleanups.  There are more users ahead of us then behind us (I
>    hope!).

Actually, if we already do cleanups, here are two more suggestions:

1. Make 64bit features a one big 64bit block, instead of having 32bits
in one place and 32 in another.
2. Remove the reserved fields out of the config (the ones that were
caused by moving the ISR and the notifications out).

> But I think this is the right direction!
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
>

Also, an unrelated questions: With PIO, requests were ordered, which
means that if we wrote to the queue selector and then read from a
queue register we would read the correct queue info.
Is the same thing assured to us with MMIO? If we write to a queue
selector and immediately read from queue info would we be reading the
right info, or is there the slight chance that it would get reordered
and we would be reading queue info first and writing to the selector
later?
--
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/