| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200401101634-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:18:03 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jgg@...lanox.com, maxime.coquelin@...hat.com,
cunming.liang@...el.com, zhihong.wang@...el.com,
rob.miller@...adcom.com, xiao.w.wang@...el.com,
lingshan.zhu@...el.com, eperezma@...hat.com, lulu@...hat.com,
parav@...lanox.com, kevin.tian@...el.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org, hch@...radead.org, aadam@...hat.com,
jiri@...lanox.com, shahafs@...lanox.com, hanand@...inx.com,
mhabets@...arflare.com, gdawar@...inx.com, saugatm@...inx.com,
vmireyno@...vell.com, zhangweining@...jie.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/9] vhost: refine vhost and vringh kconfig
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:13:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2020/4/1 下午9:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> > On 01.04.20 14:56, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > On 01.04.20 14:50, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2020/4/1 下午7:21, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > On 26.03.20 15:01, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > Currently, CONFIG_VHOST depends on CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION. But vhost is
> > > > > > not necessarily for VM since it's a generic userspace and kernel
> > > > > > communication protocol. Such dependency may prevent archs without
> > > > > > virtualization support from using vhost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To solve this, a dedicated vhost menu is created under drivers so
> > > > > > CONIFG_VHOST can be decoupled out of CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION.
> > > > > FWIW, this now results in vhost not being build with defconfig kernels (in todays
> > > > > linux-next).
> > > > >
> > > > Hi Christian:
> > > >
> > > > Did you meet it even with this commit https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=a4be40cbcedba9b5b714f3c95182e8a45176e42d?
> > > I simply used linux-next. The defconfig does NOT contain CONFIG_VHOST and therefore CONFIG_VHOST_NET and friends
> > > can not be selected.
> > >
> > > $ git checkout next-20200401
> > > $ make defconfig
> > > HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/conf.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/confdata.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/expr.o
> > > LEX scripts/kconfig/lexer.lex.c
> > > YACC scripts/kconfig/parser.tab.[ch]
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/lexer.lex.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/parser.tab.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/preprocess.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/symbol.o
> > > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/util.o
> > > HOSTLD scripts/kconfig/conf
> > > *** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig'
> > > #
> > > # configuration written to .config
> > > #
> > >
> > > $ grep VHOST .config
> > > # CONFIG_VHOST is not set
> > >
> > > > If yes, what's your build config looks like?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > This was x86. Not sure if that did work before.
> > On s390 this is definitely a regression as the defconfig files
> > for s390 do select VHOST_NET
> >
> > grep VHOST arch/s390/configs/*
> > arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig:CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig:CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> > arch/s390/configs/defconfig:CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > arch/s390/configs/defconfig:CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> >
> > and this worked with 5.6, but does not work with next. Just adding
> > CONFIG_VHOST=m to the defconfig solves the issue, something like
>
>
> Right, I think we probably need
>
> 1) add CONFIG_VHOST=m to all defconfigs that enables
> CONFIG_VHOST_NET/VSOCK/SCSI.
>
> or
>
> 2) don't use menuconfig for CONFIG_VHOST, let NET/SCSI/VDPA just select it.
>
> Thanks
I think I prefer 2, but does it auto-select VHOST_IOTLB then?
Generally what was the reason to drop select VHOST from devices?
>
> >
> > ---
> > arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig | 5 +++--
> > arch/s390/configs/defconfig | 5 +++--
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig b/arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig
> > index 46038bc58c9e..0b83274341ce 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig
> > @@ -57,8 +57,6 @@ CONFIG_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST=y
> > CONFIG_CMM=m
> > CONFIG_APPLDATA_BASE=y
> > CONFIG_KVM=m
> > -CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > -CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> > CONFIG_OPROFILE=m
> > CONFIG_KPROBES=y
> > CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=y
> > @@ -561,6 +559,9 @@ CONFIG_VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_PCI=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_BALLOON=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_INPUT=y
> > +CONFIG_VHOST=m
> > +CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > +CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> > CONFIG_S390_CCW_IOMMU=y
> > CONFIG_S390_AP_IOMMU=y
> > CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/configs/defconfig b/arch/s390/configs/defconfig
> > index 7cd0648c1f4e..39e69c4e8cf7 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/configs/defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/s390/configs/defconfig
> > @@ -57,8 +57,6 @@ CONFIG_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST=y
> > CONFIG_CMM=m
> > CONFIG_APPLDATA_BASE=y
> > CONFIG_KVM=m
> > -CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > -CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> > CONFIG_OPROFILE=m
> > CONFIG_KPROBES=y
> > CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=y
> > @@ -557,6 +555,9 @@ CONFIG_VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_PCI=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_BALLOON=m
> > CONFIG_VIRTIO_INPUT=y
> > +CONFIG_VHOST=m
> > +CONFIG_VHOST_NET=m
> > +CONFIG_VHOST_VSOCK=m
> > CONFIG_S390_CCW_IOMMU=y
> > CONFIG_S390_AP_IOMMU=y
> > CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
Powered by blists - more mailing lists