linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <705B114E-A084-4C0C-84BD-47E752FEE198@raithlin.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:23:31 +0000
From:   "Stephen  Bates" <sbates@...thlin.com>
To:     Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory


> My first reflex when reading this thread was to think that this whole domain
> lends it self excellently to testing via Qemu. Could it be that doing this in 
> the opposite direction might be a safer approach in the long run even though 
> (significant) more work up-front?

While the idea of QEMU for this work is attractive it will be a long time before QEMU is in a position to support this development. 

Another approach is to propose a common development platform for p2pmem work using a platform we know is going to work. This an extreme version of the whitelisting approach that was discussed on this thread. We can list a very specific set of hardware (motherboard, PCIe end-points and (possibly) PCIe switch enclosure) that has been shown to work that others can copy for their development purposes.

p2pmem.io perhaps ;-)?

Stephen