netdev - Re: [PATCH 06/21] vdpa: introduce virtqueue groups

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: <bf7e6f2e-eeb8-38b3-94f0-8b4a3ce9ff9f@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 12:13:27 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, lulu@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, eperezma@...hat.com,
        stefanha@...hat.com, eli@...lanox.com, lingshan.zhu@...el.com,
        rob.miller@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/21] vdpa: introduce virtqueue groups


On 2021/1/4 下午6:04, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:48:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This patch introduces virtqueue groups to vDPA device. The virtqueue
>> group is the minimal set of virtqueues that must share an address
>> space. And the adddress space identifier could only be attached to
>> a specific virtqueue group.
>>
>> A new mandated bus operation is introduced to get the virtqueue group
>> ID for a specific virtqueue.
>>
>> All the vDPA device drivers were converted to simply support a single
>> virtqueue group.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c   |  9 ++++++++-
>>   drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c |  8 +++++++-
>>   drivers/vdpa/vdpa.c               |  4 +++-
>>   drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c  | 11 ++++++++++-
>>   include/linux/vdpa.h              | 12 +++++++++---
>>   5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> Maybe consider calling it iotlb_group or iommu_group so the purpose of
> the group is clear?


I'm not sure. The reason that I choose virtqueue group is because:

1) Virtqueue is the only entity that tries to issues DMA
2) For IOMMU group, it may cause confusion to the existing IOMMU group 
who group devices
3) IOTLB is the concept in vhost, we don't have such definition in the 
virtio spec

Thanks