linux-kernel - Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?

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]

Message-ID: <46118410.2060904@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:30:40 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mathiasen@...il.com
Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> Sure, but let's look beyond device detection.  For instance, it does not 
> necessarily follow that emulating PCI DMA is the best way to go for 
> communication with a virtual device, once detected.
> 

This is true, of course.  However, there are going to be a set of 
virtual devices which don't necessarily have to have super-high 
performance.  In the case of a hwrng device, even doing DMA is probably 
overkill.

> Outside of pci_device_id driver matching, is there much value here?

If we can get a set of device drivers that if not all then at least a 
number of hypervisors and/or emulators can agree upon, I think that's 
much won.

	-hpa
-
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/