linux-kernel - Can vhost translate to io

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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:02:58 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux@...mhuis.info,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mst@...hat.com,
        sgarzare@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
        brauner@...nel.org
Subject: Can vhost translate to io_uring?

I am sad my idea for simplifying things did not work out.

Let's try an even bigger idea to reduce maintenance and simplify things.

Could vhost depend on io_uring?

Could vhost just be a translation layer of existing vhost requests to
io_uring requests?

At a quick glance it looks like io_uring already supports the
functionality that vhost supports (which I think is networking and
scsi).

If vhost could become a translation layer that would allow removing
the vhost worker and PF_USER_WORKER could be removed completely,
leaving only PF_IO_WORKER.

I suggest this because a significant vhost change is needed because in
the long term the hacks in exec and coredump are not a good idea.  Which
means something like my failed "[PATCH v3] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD
to fix freezer/ps regression".

If we have to go to all of the trouble of reworking things it why can't
we just make io_uring do all of the work?

Eric