linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] virtio_test: add support for vhost-vdpa

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: <CACGkMEtHg_EVYcS=Qxsmwq3t+96E8LNqa5Ck1Gi4hJs2AJ0F+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:47:10 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] virtio_test: add support for vhost-vdpa

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:46 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 04:34:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> >在 2022/7/5 01:16, Stefano Garzarella 写道:
> >>The first 3 patches fix various problems I have encountered with
> >>virtio_test (they may go without this series, but I included to allow you
> >>to test the series).
> >>
> >>Patch 4 is in preparation of patch 5, moving the feature negotiation when
> >>we initialize the device.
> >>
> >>Patch 5 add the support of vhost-vdpa in virtio_test
> >>
> >>Patch 6 add vdpa_test.ko based on vdpa_sim_test.c, so we can reuse most of
> >>the code coming from the vdpa_sim framework.
> >>
> >>I tested in this way:
> >>
> >>   $ modprobe vdpa_sim
> >>   $ modprobe vhost-vdpa
> >>
> >>   # load the vdpasim_test device
> >>   $ insmod vdpa_test.ko
> >>
> >>   # create a new vdpasim_test device
> >>   $ vdpa dev add mgmtdev vdpasim_test name dev0
> >
> >
> >I wonder what's the benefit of using a dedicated test device other
> >than networking? (already a loopback device anyhow).
> >
>
> The main advantage I was thinking is that we can extend it at will to
> try to cover as much as possible all the paths that maybe with net we
> can't (indirect, reset, etc.).
>
> Plus it should be easier to test vhost-vdpa this way without using QEMU.
>
> Do you think this is redundant?

It's probably fine and it might be better to describe the reason in
the changelog.

THanks

>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>