linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SCSI driver for VMware's virtual HBA.

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: <200909010933.50571.dtor@vmware.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:33:50 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Robert Love <robert.w.love@...el.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
	Maxime Austruy <maustruy@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI driver for VMware's virtual HBA.

On Tuesday 01 September 2009 09:16:51 am Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:12:43AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > I'm not really sure we should be trying to force drivers to share just
> > because they are paravirtualized -- if there is real commonality, then
> > sure put it in common code, but different hypervisors are probably as
> > different as different hardware.
> 
> I really disagree.  This kind of virtualised drivers are pretty much
> communication protocols, and not hardware.  As such, why design a new one?
> If there's an infelicity in the ibmvscsi protocol, it makes sense to
> design a new one.  But being different for the sake of being different
> is just a way to generate a huge amount of make-work.
> 

The same thing can be said about pretty much anything. We don't have
single SCSI, network, etc driver handling every devices in their
respective class, I don't see why it would be different here.
A hypervisor presents the same interface to the guest OS (whether
it is Linux, Solaris or another OS) much like a piece of silicone
does and it may very well be different form other hypervisors.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/