linux-kernel - Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification interface

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: <49F6E2BB.9070604@novell.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:04:27 -0400
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via	eventfd-notification
 interface

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>  
>
>>> But eventfd_signal basically marries us to eventfd.
>>>     
>>
>> Well, only if we expect the fd to have eventfd semantics.  There are
>> advantages to doing so, as we have discussed, because things like AIO
>> can polymorhpically signal an interrupt without even knowing whats
>> behind the eventfd.  But this isn't a strict requirement to support
>> AIO.  Really all we need is a way for both kernel and userspace to
>> signal.  Perhaps I should export an "irqfd_signal()" function from kvm,
>> which today will map to eventfd_signal(), and tomorrow to ??.  I don't
>> think using f_ops->write() is an option for in-kernel signaling, so we
>> need some kind of interface here.
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>   
>
> irqfd_signal() ties the user of irqfd to kvm.  I want this user to be
> independent of kvm; it should work with eventfd, kvm's eventfd
> lookalike (if we move away from eventfd) or pipes.

So what is your proposal for such interface?

-Greg



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)