netdev - RE: [PATCH v18 net-next 1/1] hv_sock: introduce Hyper-V Sockets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CO2PR03MB2182B2EDF306221382C160BCBF0F0@CO2PR03MB2182.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:20:48 +0000
From:	Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"mkubecek@...e.cz" <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"dave.scott@...ker.com" <dave.scott@...ker.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
	"rolf.neugebauer@...ker.com" <rolf.neugebauer@...ker.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v18 net-next 1/1] hv_sock: introduce Hyper-V Sockets

> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:45
> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> 
> From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:09:41 +0000
> 
> > I googled "S390 hypervisor socket" but didn't find anything related (I think).
> 
> That would be net/iucv/
Thanks for the info! I'll look into this.
 
> There's also VMWare's stuff under net/vmw_vsock
> 
> It's just absolutely rediculous to make a new hypervisor socket
> interface over and over again, so much code duplication and
> replication.
I agree on this principle of avoiding duplication.
However my feeling is: IMHO different hypervisor sockets were developed
independently without coordination and the implementation details could be
so different that an enough generic framework/infrastructure is difficult,
e.g., at first glance, it looks AF_IUCV is quite different from AF_VSOCK and
this might explain why AF_VSOCK wasn't built on AF_IUCV(?).

I'll dig more into AF_IUCV, AF_VSOCK and AF_HYPERV and figure out what
is the best direction I should go.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan