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]

Message-ID: <20081106174741.GC11773@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:47:41 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	H L <swdevyid@...oo.com>, Yu Zhao <yu.zhao@...el.com>,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, grundler@...isc-linux.org, achiang@...com,
	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, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16 v6] PCI: Linux kernel SR-IOV support

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:49:19AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

The current model being implemented by my colleagues has separate
drivers for the PF (aka native) and VF devices.  I don't personally
believe this is the correct path, but I'm reserving judgement until I
see some code.

I don't think we really know what the One True Usage model is for VF
devices.  Chris Wright has some ideas, I have some ideas and Yu Zhao has
some ideas.  I bet there's other people who have other ideas too.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/