linux-kernel - Re: vbus design points: shm and shm-signals

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A932BEF.5080603@codemonkey.ws>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:10:23 -0500
From:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
CC:	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vbus design points: shm and shm-signals

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> IOW, I can envision a model that looked like PCI -> virtio-pci -> 
> virtio-shm -> virtio-ring -> virtio-net

Let me stress that what's important here is that devices target either 
virtio-ring or virtio-shm.  If we had another transport, those drivers 
would be agnostic toward it.  We really want to preserve the ability to 
use all devices over a PCI transport.  That's a critical requirement for us.

The problem with vbus as it stands today, is that it presents vbus -> 
virtio-ring -> virtio-net and allows drivers to target either 
virtio-ring or vbus directly.  If a driver targets vbus directly, then 
the driver is no longer transport agnostic and we could not support that 
driver over PCI.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
--
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/