netdev - Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication.

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: <20081215.114315.165733593.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:43:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	anthony@...emonkey.ws
Cc:	gleb@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host
 communication.

From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600

> There is already an AF_IUCV for s390.

This is a scarecrow and irrelevant to this discussion.

And this is exactly why I asked that any arguments in this thread
avoid talking about virtualization technology and why it's "special."

This proposed patch here is asking to add new infrastructure for
hypervisor facilities that will be _ADDED_ and for which we have
complete control over.

Whereas the S390 folks have to deal with existing infrastructure which
is largely outside of their control.  So if they implement access
mechanisms for that, it's fine.

I would be doing the same thing if I added a protocol socket layer for
accessing the Niagara hypervisor virtualization channels.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html