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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:39:54 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws> To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, kvm@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Dmitry Fleytman <dmitry@...nix.com> Subject: Re: updated: kvm networking todo wiki Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> writes: > Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws> writes: >> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> writes: >>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:47:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> FWIW, I think what's more interesting is using vhost-net as a networking >>>> backend with virtio-net in QEMU being what's guest facing. >>>> >>>> In theory, this gives you the best of both worlds: QEMU acts as a first >>>> line of defense against a malicious guest while still getting the >>>> performance advantages of vhost-net (zero-copy). >>>> >>> It would be an interesting idea if we didn't already have the vhost >>> model where we don't need the userspace bounce. >> >> The model is very interesting for QEMU because then we can use vhost as >> a backend for other types of network adapters (like vmxnet3 or even >> e1000). >> >> It also helps for things like fault tolerance where we need to be able >> to control packet flow within QEMU. > > (CC's reduced, context added, Dmitry Fleytman added for vmxnet3 thoughts). > > Then I'm really confused as to what this would look like. A zero copy > sendmsg? We should be able to implement that today. The only trouble with sendmsg would be doing batch submission and asynchronous completion. A thread pool could certainly be used for this I guess. Regards, Anthony Liguori > On the receive side, what can we do better than readv? If we need to > return to userspace to tell the guest that we've got a new packet, we > don't win on latency. We might reduce syscall overhead with a > multi-dimensional readv to read multiple packets at once? > > Confused, > Rusty. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists