netdev - Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:15:15 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

On 12/23/09 5:22 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:

> 
> There was no attempt by Gregory to improve virtio-net.

If you truly do not understand why your statement is utterly wrong at
this point in the discussion, I feel sorry for you.  If you are trying
to be purposely disingenuous, you should be ashamed of yourself.  In any
case, your statement is demonstrably bogus, but you should already know
this given that we talked about at least several times.

To refresh your memory: http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/17428/

In case its not blatantly clear, which I would hope it would be to
anyone that understands the problem space:  What that patch would do is
allow an unmodified virtio-net to bridge to a vbus based virtio-net
backend.  (Also note that this predates vhost-net by months (the date in
that thread is 4/9/2009) in case you are next going to try to argue that
it does nothing over vhost-net).

This would mean that virtio-net would gain most of the benefits I have
been advocating (fewer exits, cheaper exits, concurrent execution, etc).
 So this would very much improve virtio-net indeed, given how poorly the
current backend was performing.  I tried to convince the team to help me
build it out to completion on multiple occasions, but that request was
answered with "sorry, we are doing our own thing instead".  You can say
that you didn't like my approach, since that is a subjective opinion.
But to say that I didn't attempt to improve it is a flat out wrong, and
I do not appreciate it.

-Greg

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