linux-kernel - Re: [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: <4A8B66280200005A00052A54@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:40:40 -0600
From:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	"Gregory Haskins" <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	"Avi Kivity" <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Anthony Liguori" <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for
	 vbus_driver objects

>>> On 8/19/2009 at  1:48 AM, in message <4A8B9241.20300@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity
<avi@...hat.com> wrote: 
> On 08/19/2009 08:36 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> If virtio net in guest could be improved instead, everyone would
>>> benefit.
>>>      
>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
>> connector, you are happy?
>>    
> 
> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.

Any why not?  (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over virtio-pci)


> 
>>> I am doing this, and I wish more people would join.  Instead,
>>> you change ABI in a incompatible way.
>>>      
>> Only by choice of my particular connector.  The ABI is a function of the
>> connector design.  So one such model is to terminate the connector in
>> qemu, and surface the resulting objects as PCI devices.  I choose not to
>> use this particular design for my connector that I am pushing upstream
>> because I am of the opinion that I can do better by terminating it in
>> the guest directly as a PV optimized bus.  However, both connectors can
>> theoretically coexist peacefully.
>>    
> 
> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390.  Transporting 
> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over 
> directly transporting virtio over that something else.

This is not what I am advocating.

Kind Regards,
-Greg





--
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/