linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-spec: flexible configuration layout

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:	Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:49:17 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@...il.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-spec: flexible configuration layout

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:26:08PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 12:13 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:46:06AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > The device initialization sequence might use an update as well.
> > 
> > What is needed? Add an item where the driver scans the PCI capability
> > list to detect the layout?
> 
> Yup, something similar like that - just to make it obvious.
> 
> > > Maybe
> > > also a description of how device handles missing structure IDs.
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > 
> > Hmm. I just have
> > 'Drivers should fall back on this legacy structure if a
> >  Virtio Structure capability is missing in the PCI capability
> >  list'. 
> > 
> > What else would be helpful? An example? 
> 
> I just remembered from your patch that you could define some structure
> IDs, but not necessarily all of them, if it's not longer the case then
> ignore me. If it is, then the scenario of a missing structure should be
> specified (For example, if the ISR structure wasn't defined, fall back
> to...).

Yes, this was the intent of the text above. I'll make that explicit.

> > > I'm not sure what capability length is, can't find it in the spec
> > > either.
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > 
> > It's the legth of the vendor specific capability structure in bytes.
> > 'the byte immediately following the “Next”
> >  pointer in the capability structure is defined to be a length field'
> > It's on page 330 in my copy.
> 
> Right, I was looking only at the regular cap definition.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Sasha.
--
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/