[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 09/11] transport-pci: Describe PCI MMR dev config registers
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 02:20:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:15âPM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > This is fine for vDPA but not for virtio if the design can only work > > > for some specific setups (OSes/archs). > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Well virtio legacy has a long history of documenting existing hacks :) > > Exactly, so the legacy behaviour is not (or can't be) defined by the > spec but the codes. I mean driver behaviour derives from the code but we do document it in the spec to help people build devices. > > But yes, VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM has to be documented. > > And we have to decide what to do about ACCESS_PLATFORM since > > there's a security problem if device allows not acking it. > > Two options: > > - relax the rules a bit and say device will assume ACCESS_PLATFORM > > is acked anyway > > This will break legacy drivers which assume physical addresses. not that they are not already broken. > > - a new flag that is insecure (so useful for sec but useless for dpdk) but optional > > This looks like a new "hack" for the legacy hacks. it's not just for legacy. > And what about ORDER_PLATFORM, I don't think we can modify legacy drivers... > > Thanks You play some tricks with shadow VQ I guess. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]