linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] uio_pci_generic: extensions to allow access for non-privileged processes

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]

Date:	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:21:00 +0200
From:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:	Tom Lyon <pugs@...n-about.com>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>,
	gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] uio_pci_generic: extensions to allow access for
	non-privileged processes

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:24:45PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:

> For my purposes, collapsing all the MSI-Xs into one MSI-look-alike is fine, 
> because I'd be using MSI anyways if I could. The weird Intel 82599 VF only 
> supports MSI-X.

For KVM this is not fine. The device should look in the guest as it
looks in the host. Some devices might only support MSI-X and thus the
drivers for it only search for MSI-X and get confused when they only
find MSI.

> So one big question is - do we expand the whole UIO framework for KVM 
> requirements, or do we split off either KVM or non-VM into a separate driver?
> Hans or Greg - care to opine?

We should definitly work towards a single implementation. The KVM device
passthrough requirements are not very different from that of userspace
device access.

	Joerg

--
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/