netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio-net: inline header 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:	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:24:47 -0500
From:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio-net: inline header support

Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> writes:

> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
>
>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
>> virtio net header inline with the data.
>> This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
>> extra head room for the packet, and I don't see
>> why would this have any downsides.
>
> I've been wanting to do this for the longest time... but...
>
>> Even though with my recent patches qemu
>> no longer requires header to be the first s/g element,
>> we need a new feature bit to detect this.
>> A trivial qemu patch will be sent separately.
>
> There's a reason I haven't done this.  I really, really dislike "my
> implemention isn't broken" feature bits.  We could have an infinite
> number of them, for each bug in each device.

This is a bug in the specification.

The QEMU implementation pre-dates the specification.  All of the actual
implementations of virtio relied on the semantics of s/g elements and
still do.

What's in the specification really doesn't matter when it doesn't agree
with all of the existing implementations.

Users use implementations, not specifications.  The specification really
ought to be changed here.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html