linux-kernel - Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus

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: <4A8AE918.5000109@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:47:04 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>
CC:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus
 model for vbus_driver objects

On 08/18/2009 08:27 PM, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
>> In fact, modern x86s do have dma engines these days (google for Intel
>> I/OAT), and one of our plans for vhost-net is to allow their use for
>> packets above a certain size.  So a patch allowing vhost-net to
>> optionally use a dma engine is a good thing.
>>      
> Yes, I'm aware that very modern x86 PCs have general purpose DMA
> engines, even though I don't have any capable hardware. However, I think
> it is better to support using any PC (with or without DMA engine, any
> architecture) as the PCI master, and just handle the DMA all from the
> PCI agent, which is known to have DMA?
>    

Certainly; but if your PCI agent will support the DMA API, then the same 
vhost code will work with both I/OAT and your specialized hardware.

>> Exposing a knob to userspace is not an insurmountable problem; vhost-net
>> already allows changing the memory layout, for example.
>>
>>      
> Let me explain the most obvious problem I ran into: setting the MAC
> addresses used in virtio.
>
> On the host (PCI master), I want eth0 (virtio-net) to get a random MAC
> address.
>
> On the guest (PCI agent), I want eth0 (virtio-net) to get a specific MAC
> address, aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff.
>
> The virtio feature negotiation code handles this, by seeing the
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC feature in it's configuration space. If BOTH drivers do
> not have VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC set, then NEITHER will use the specified MAC
> address. This is because the feature negotiation code only accepts a
> feature if it is offered by both sides of the connection.
>
> In this case, I must have the guest generate a random MAC address and
> have the host put aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff into the guest's configuration
> space. This basically means hardcoding the MAC addresses in the Linux
> drivers, which is a big no-no.
>
> What would I expose to userspace to make this situation manageable?
>
>    

I think in this case you want one side to be virtio-net (I'm guessing 
the x86) and the other side vhost-net (the ppc boards with the dma 
engine).  virtio-net on x86 would communicate with userspace on the ppc 
board to negotiate features and get a mac address, the fast path would 
be between virtio-net and vhost-net (which would use the dma engine to 
push and pull data).

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/