netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] remove msize limit in virtio transport

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: <Ye6IaIqQcwAKv0vb@codewreck.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:07:20 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Nikolay Kichukov <nikolay@...um.net>
Cc:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] remove msize limit in virtio transport

Nikolay Kichukov wrote on Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:21:08AM +0100:
> It works, sorry for overlooking the 'known limitations' in the first
> place. When do we expect these patches to be merged upstream?

We're just starting a new development cycle for 5.18 while 5.17 is
stabilizing, so this mostly depends on the ability to check if a msize
given in parameter is valid as described in the first "STILL TO DO"
point listed in the cover letter.

I personally would be happy considering this series for this cycle with
just a max msize of 4MB-8k and leave that further bump for later if
we're sure qemu will handle it.
We're still seeing a boost for that and the smaller buffers for small
messages will benefit all transport types, so that would get in in
roughly two months for 5.18-rc1, then another two months for 5.18 to
actually be released and start hitting production code.

I'm not sure when exactly but I'll run some tests with it as well and
redo a proper code review within the next few weeks, so we can get this
in -next for a little while before the merge window.

-- 
Dominique