linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

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:	Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:27:44 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	anthony@...emonkey.ws, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de, pmullaney@...ell.com,
	pmorreale@...ell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>     
>>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> On Thursday 02 April 2009 21:36:07 Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>         
>>>>> You do not need to know when the packet is copied (which I currently
>>>>> do).  You only need it for zero-copy (of which I would like to
>>>>> support,
>>>>> but as I understand it there are problems with the reliability of
>>>>> proper
>>>>> callback (i.e. skb->destructor).
>>>>>           
>>>>>           
>>>> But if you have a UP guest,
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I assume you mean UP host ;)
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I think Rusty did mean a UP guest, and without schedule-and-forget.
>>     
> That doesnt make sense to me, tho.  All the testing I did was a UP
> guest, actually.  Why would I be constrained to run without the
> scheduling unless the host was also UP?
>   

You aren't constrained.  And your numbers show it works.

>>
>> The problem is that we already have virtio guest drivers going several
>> kernel versions back, as well as Windows drivers.  We can't keep
>> changing the infrastructure under people's feet.
>>     
>
> Well, IIUC the virtio code itself declares the ABI as unstable, so there
> technically *is* an out if we really wanted one.  But I certainly
> understand the desire to not change this ABI if at all possible, and
> thus the resistance here.
>   

virtio is a stable ABI.

> However, theres still the possibility we can make this work in an ABI
> friendly way with cap-bits, or other such features.  For instance, the
> virtio-net driver could register both with pci and vbus-proxy and
> instantiate a device with a slightly different ops structure for each or
> something.  Alternatively we could write a host-side shim to expose vbus
> devices as pci devices or something like that.
>   

Sounds complicated...

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/