netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

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: <20090402091639.GA30126@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:16:39 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	ghaskins@...ell.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de, pmullaney@...ell.com,
	pmorreale@...ell.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:02:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> There is no choice.  Exiting from the guest to the kernel to userspace  
> is prohibitively expensive, you can't do that on every packet.

I was referring to the bit between the kernel and userspace.

In any case, I just looked at the virtio mitigation code again
and I am completely baffled at why we need it.  Look at Greg's
code or the netback/netfront notification, why do we need this
completely artificial mitigation when the ring itself provides
a natural way of stemming the flow?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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