netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware 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:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 22:39:07 +0800
From:   Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     jasowang@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        maxime.coquelin@...hat.com, 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,
        lingshan.zhu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware backend

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:59:02AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 07:53:32PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > This patch introduces a mdev based hardware vhost backend.
> > This backend is built on top of the same abstraction used
> > in virtio-mdev and provides a generic vhost interface for
> > userspace to accelerate the virtio devices in guest.
> > 
> > This backend is implemented as a mdev device driver on top
> > of the same mdev device ops used in virtio-mdev but using
> > a different mdev class id, and it will register the device
> > as a VFIO device for userspace to use. Userspace can setup
> > the IOMMU with the existing VFIO container/group APIs and
> > then get the device fd with the device name. After getting
> > the device fd, userspace can use vhost ioctls on top of it
> > to setup the backend.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>
> 
> So at this point, looks like the only thing missing is IFC, and then all
> these patches can go in.
> But as IFC is still being worked on anyway, it makes sense to
> address the minor comments manwhile so we don't need
> patches on top.
> Right?

Yeah, of course.

Thanks,
Tiwei