OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: virtio crypto device implemenation

On Wed, 24 May 2017 04:13:47 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +0000, Zeng, Xin wrote:
> > Hi, Michael, 
> >    As you know, Lei Gong from Huawei and I are co-working  on virtio crypto device spec, he is focusing on symmetric algorithm part, I am focusing on asymmetric part.  Now I am planning the implementation for asymmetric part, would you please give me your point regarding the questions below?
> >    Current virtio crypto device implementation from Lei Gong:
> >    The virtio crypto device implementation has been upstreamed to QEMU and it has a qemu backend implementation for symmetric algorithm part, the front end Linux device driver for symmetric part has been upstreamed to Linux kernel as well.
> >    My questions:
> >    From my side, I planned to add the asymmetric part support in upstreamed front end device driver, and I don't want to add the asymmetric algorithm support to current virtio crypto device's qemu backend, instead, I would like to implement and upstream a DPDK vhost-user based backend for asymmetric algorithm, and accordingly Lei Gong will help to upstream a vhost user agent for virtio crypto device in QEMU,  is this approach acceptable? Is a qemu backend a mandatory requirement for the virtio crypto device?  Is there a general policy for this?
> > 
> > Thanks
> Parity on QEMU side is naturally preferable.  I don't think we should require it
> at all times, but if there's no implementation outside vhost-user,
> and if the feature includes a non-trivial amount of code, how
> will it be tested? I don't think we want to require all testers to use
> dpdk. An implementation under tests using libvhost-user might
> be a solution.

From the s390 perspective, I'd naturally prefer a qemu implementation.
I think there is value in being able to try it out on a variety of
platforms, so that you can shake out problems such as endianness easily.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]