netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus

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: <4A8BE765.4080507@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:52:05 -0400
From:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for		 vbus_driver
 objects

Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/19/2009 02:40 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
>>>>>> connector, you are happy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> Any why not?  (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over
>>>> virtio-pci)
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Because virtio-net will have gained nothing that it didn't have before.
>>>      
>> ??
>>
>> *) ABI is virtio-pci compatible, as you like
>>    
> 
> That's not a gain, that's staying in the same place.
> 
>> *) fast-path is in-kernel, as we all like
>>    
> 
> That's not a gain as we have vhost-net (sure, in development, but your
> proposed backend isn't even there yet).
> 
>> *) model is in vbus so it would work in all environments that vbus
>> supports.
>>    
> 
> The ABI can be virtio-pci compatible or it can be vbus-comaptible.  How
> can it be both?  The ABIs are different.
> 
> Note that if you had submitted a virtio-net backend I'd have asked you
> to strip away all the management / bus layers and we'd have ended up
> with vhost-net.

Sigh...


> 
>>>>> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390.  Transporting
>>>>> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything
>>>>> over
>>>>> directly transporting virtio over that something else.
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> This is not what I am advocating.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> What are you advocating?  As far as I can tell your virtio-vbus
>>> connector plus the vbus-kvm connector is just that.
>>>      
>> I wouldn't classify it anything like that, no.  Its just virtio over
>> vbus.
>>    
> 
> We're in a loop.  Doesn't virtio over vbus need a virtio-vbus
> connector?  and doesn't vbus need a connector to talk to the hypervisor?
> 

No, it doesnt work like that.  There is only one connector.

Kind Regards,
-Greg


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)