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  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:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:17:51 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        wexu@...hat.com, jfreimann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/5] virtio: support packed ring



On 2018年04月27日 12:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:56:05AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018年04月25日 13:15, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> This RFC implements packed ring support in virtio driver.
>>>
>>> Some simple functional tests have been done with Jason's
>>> packed ring implementation in vhost:
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/23/12
>>>
>>> Both of ping and netperf worked as expected (with EVENT_IDX
>>> disabled). But there are below known issues:
>>>
>>> 1. Reloading the guest driver will break the Tx/Rx;
>> Will have a look at this issue.
>>
>>> 2. Zeroing the flags when detaching a used desc will
>>>      break the guest -> host path.
>> I still think zeroing flags is unnecessary or even a bug. At host, I track
>> last observed avail wrap counter and detect avail like (what is suggested in
>> the example code in the spec):
>>
>> static bool desc_is_avail(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, __virtio16 flags)
>> {
>>         bool avail = flags & cpu_to_vhost16(vq, DESC_AVAIL);
>>
>>         return avail == vq->avail_wrap_counter;
>> }
>>
>> So zeroing wrap can not work with this obviously.
>>
>> Thanks
> I agree. I think what one should do is flip the available bit.
>

But is this flipping a must?

Thanks

Powered by blists - more mailing lists