netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA

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:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:23:38 +0800
From:   Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        lulu@...hat.com, leonro@...dia.com
Cc:     virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for
 vDPA



On 4/15/2021 3:17 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> 在 2021/4/15 下午2:41, Zhu Lingshan 写道:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we've discussed this sometime in the past but what's the 
>>>>> reason for such whitelist consider there's already a 
>>>>> get_features() implemention?
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g Any reason to block VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROS or 
>>>>> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> The reason is some feature bits are supported in the device but not 
>>>> supported by the driver, e.g, for virtio-net, mq & cq 
>>>> implementation is not ready in the driver.
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand the case of virtio-net but I wonder why we need this 
>>> for block where we don't vq cvq.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> This is still a subset of the feature bits read from hardware, I 
>> leave it here to code consistently, and indicate what we support 
>> clearly.
>> Are you suggesting remove this feature bits list and just use what we 
>> read from hardware?
>>
>> Thansk 
>
>
> Yes, please do that.
>
> The whiltelist doesn't help in this case I think.
OK, will remove this in V2

Thanks
>
> Thanks