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: <50ED25E7.9010609@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:10:15 +0100
From:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming

On 01/09/13 03:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor
>> specific one which this certainly is.
> 
> Objectively speaking neither solution is hypervisor neutral as there are
> hypervisors that implement either VMCI or virtio or something else
> entirely.

Indeed.  vmchannel is tied to virtio like vsock is tied to vmci.

> Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that it
> should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK traffic,
> should interested parties implement them,

Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci)
first as the current vsock code is not a hypervisor neutral service.

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/