netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v5 13/13] vhost: drop head based APIs

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]

Message-ID: <20200608023311-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jun 2020 02:45:50 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        eperezma@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 13/13] vhost: drop head based APIs

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:57:48AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/6/7 下午10:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Everyone's using buf APIs, no need for head based ones anymore.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 36 ++++++++----------------------------
> >   drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 12 ------------
> >   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > index 72ee55c810c4..e6931b760b61 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > @@ -2299,12 +2299,12 @@ static int fetch_buf(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> >   	return 1;
> >   }
> > -/* Reverse the effect of vhost_get_vq_desc. Useful for error handling. */
> > +/* Revert the effect of fetch_buf. Useful for error handling. */
> > +static
> >   void vhost_discard_vq_desc(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int n)
> >   {
> >   	vq->last_avail_idx -= n;
> >   }
> > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_discard_vq_desc);
> 
> 
> The same question as previous version.
> 
> Do we need to rewind cached descriptor here?
> 
> Thanks

Good point.  This needs more thought, we need to also
rewind the avail idx each time we flush the descriptor cache.

-- 
MST