linux-kernel - Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming

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: <50A55F57.7080804@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:32:07 -0600
From:	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>
To:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
CC:	Andy King <acking@...are.com>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	georgezhang@...are.com,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming

On 11/07/2012 12:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of
>>> this stuff without your proprietary bits?
>>
>> Do you mean the VMCI calls?  The VMCI driver is in the process of being
>> upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree.  Greg (cc'd on these patches) is
>> actively reviewing that code and we are addressing feedback.
>>
>> Also, there was some interest from RedHat into using vSockets as a unified
>> interface, routed over a hypervisor-specific transport (virtio or
>> otherwise, although for now VMCI is the only one implemented).
>
> Can you outline how this can be done?  From a quick look over the code
> it seems like vsock has a hard dependency on vmci, is that correct?
>
> When making vsock a generic, reusable kernel service it should be the
> other way around:  vsock should provide the core implementation and an
> interface where hypervisor-specific transports (vmci, virtio, xenbus,
> ...) can register themself.

This was already done in a hypervisor neutral way using virtio:

http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2008/12/14/8

The concept was Nacked and that led to the abomination of virtio-serial.  If an 
address family for virtualization is on the table, we should reconsider 
AF_VMCHANNEL.

I'd be thrilled to get rid of virtio-serial...

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> cheers,
>    Gerd

--
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/