linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] virtio: add functions for piecewise addition of buffers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <511B4983.7010103@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:06:27 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] virtio: add functions for piecewise addition of buffers

Il 12/02/2013 21:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:08:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 12/02/2013 19:23, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 07:04:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>> Perhaps, but 3 or 4 arguments (in/out/nsg or in/out/nsg_in/nsg_out) just
>>>>>> for this are definitely too many and make the API harder to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to find a balance.  Having actually used the API, the
>>>>>> possibility of mixing in/out buffers by mistake never even occurred to
>>>>>> me, much less happened in practice, so I didn't consider it a problem.
>>>>>> Mixing in/out buffers in a single call wasn't a necessity, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is useful for virtqueue_add_buf implementation.
>>>>
>>>>         ret = virtqueue_start_buf(vq, data, out + in, !!out + !!in,
>>>> 				  gfp);
>>>>         if (ret < 0)
>>>>                 return ret;
>>>>
>>>>         if (out)
>>>>                 virtqueue_add_sg(vq, sg, out, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
>>>>         if (in)
>>>>                 virtqueue_add_sg(vq, sg + out, in, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>>>>
>>>>         virtqueue_end_buf(vq);
>>>> 	return 0;
>>>>
>>>> How can it be simpler and easier to understand than that?
>>>
>>> Like this:
>>>
>>>          ret = virtqueue_start_buf(vq, data, in, out, gfp);
>>>          if (ret < 0)
>>>                  return ret;
>>>  
>>>          virtqueue_add_sg(vq, sg, in, out);
>>>  
>>>          virtqueue_end_buf(vq);
>>
>> It's out/in, not in/out... I know you wrote it in a hurry, but it kind
>> of shows that the new API is easier to use.  Check out patch 8, it's  a
>> real improvement in readability.
> 
> That's virtqueue_add_buf_single, that's a separate matter.
> Another option for _single is just two wrappers:
> virtqueue_add_buf_in
> virtqueue_add_buf_out

I like it less, but yes this one would be ok (no driver uses a variable
for the enum parameter).

>> Plus you haven't solved the problem of alternating to/from-device
>> elements (which is also harder to spot with in/out than with the enum).
> 
> Yes it does, if add_sg does not have in/out at all there's no way to
> request the impossible to/from mix.

In your example above it does have it.  I assume you meant

         ret = virtqueue_start_buf(vq, data, out, in, gfp);
         if (ret < 0)
                 return ret;

          virtqueue_add_sg(vq, sg, out + in);
          virtqueue_end_buf(vq);

>>>> virtqueue_add_buf and virtqueue_add_sg are very different, despite the
>>>> similar name.
>>>
>>> True. The similarity is between _start and _add_buf.
>>> And this is confusing too. Maybe this means
>>> _start and _add_sg should be renamed.
>>
>> Maybe.  If you have any suggestions it's fine.
>>
>> BTW I tried using out/in for start_buf, and the code in virtio-blk gets
>> messier, it has to do all the math twice.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can do this without duplication, if we want to.

Indeed, if you remove the out/in arguments from _sg there is no
duplication in virtio-blk.  That's because it places data-out at the end
and data-in at the beginning (so data is always after the request header
and before the response footer).

>> Perhaps we just need to
>> acknowledge that the API is different and thus the optimal choice of
>> arguments is different.  C doesn't have keyword arguments, there not
>> much that we can do.
> 
> Yea, maybe. I'm not the API guru here anyway, it's Rusty's street.

Let's wait for him.

Paolo

--
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/