netdev - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost backend

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:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:51:43 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dan.daly@...el.com, cunming.liang@...el.com,
        zhihong.wang@...el.com, jianfeng.tan@...el.com,
        xiao.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost
 backend

On 10/04/2018 06:57, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>> So you just move the abstraction layer from qemu to kernel, and you still
>> need different drivers in kernel for different device interfaces of
>> accelerators. This looks even more complex than leaving it in qemu. As you
>> said, another idea is to implement userspace vhost backend for accelerators
>> which seems easier and could co-work with other parts of qemu without
>> inventing new type of messages.
> 
> I'm not quite sure. Do you think it's acceptable to
> add various vendor specific hardware drivers in QEMU?

I think so.  We have vendor-specific quirks, and at some point there was
an idea of using quirks to implement (vendor-specific) live migration
support for assigned devices.

Paolo