From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Marchand Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Why I advise against using ivshmem Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:25:30 +0200 Message-ID: <53A29E7A.9030106@6wind.com> References: <87vbs6qjhj.fsf_-_@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5399CF09.8030803@6wind.com> <87ppidnqmy.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <539AC3E0.9090404@6wind.com> <539ACDE6.7020709@redhat.com> <539AFF7C.7090702@6wind.com> <539B064D.2050501@redhat.com> <53A00464.8090609@6wind.com> <53A00DEB.8030400@redhat.com> <20140618104849.GH14030@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <53A1A9D9.6010908@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Henning Schild , Olivier MATZ , kvm , qemu-devel , Linux Virtualization , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" , Peter Maydell , Alexander Graf To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Vincent JARDIN Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:50447 "EHLO mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757617AbaFSIZi (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:25:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n15so8899179wiw.10 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:25:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53A1A9D9.6010908@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/18/2014 05:01 PM, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: > late onto this thread: SUSE Security team has just recently > done a thorough review of QEMU ivshmem code because a customer has > requested this be supported in SLES12. Multiple security-related > patches were submitted by Stefan Hajnoczi and Sebastian Krahmer, and = I > fear they are probably still not merged for lack of active > maintainer... In such cases, after review, I expect them to be picked > up by Peter as committer or via qemu-trivial. > > So -1, against dropping it. Are these patches on patchwork ? > Vincent, you will find an RFC for an ivshmem-test in the qemu-devel > list archives or possibly on my qtest branch. The blocking issue that > I haven't worked on yet is that we can't unconditionally run the qtes= t > because it depends on KVM enabled at configure time (as opposed to > runtime) to have the device available. > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/336367/ > > As others have stated before, the nahanni server seems unmaintained, > thus not getting packaged by SUSE either and making testing the > interrupt parts of ivshmem difficult - unless we sort out and fill > with actual test code my proposed qtest. Thanks for the RFC patch. About ivshmem server, yes I will look at it. I will see what I can propose or if importing nahanni implementation=20 as-is is the best solution. Anyway, first, documentation. --=20 David Marchand From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33341) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxXfF-0003C2-1g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:25:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxXf8-0002Vv-Vo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:25:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:62123) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxXf8-0002Vo-Df for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:25:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so1889521wgg.33 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53A29E7A.9030106@6wind.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:25:30 +0200 From: David Marchand MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87vbs6qjhj.fsf_-_@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5399CF09.8030803@6wind.com> <87ppidnqmy.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <539AC3E0.9090404@6wind.com> <539ACDE6.7020709@redhat.com> <539AFF7C.7090702@6wind.com> <539B064D.2050501@redhat.com> <53A00464.8090609@6wind.com> <53A00DEB.8030400@redhat.com> <20140618104849.GH14030@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <53A1A9D9.6010908@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <53A1A9D9.6010908@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Why I advise against using ivshmem List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Vincent JARDIN Cc: Henning Schild , Olivier MATZ , kvm , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel , Linux Virtualization , Alexander Graf , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" On 06/18/2014 05:01 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > late onto this thread: SUSE Security team has just recently > done a thorough review of QEMU ivshmem code because a customer has > requested this be supported in SLES12. Multiple security-related > patches were submitted by Stefan Hajnoczi and Sebastian Krahmer, and I > fear they are probably still not merged for lack of active > maintainer... In such cases, after review, I expect them to be picked > up by Peter as committer or via qemu-trivial. > > So -1, against dropping it. Are these patches on patchwork ? > Vincent, you will find an RFC for an ivshmem-test in the qemu-devel > list archives or possibly on my qtest branch. The blocking issue that > I haven't worked on yet is that we can't unconditionally run the qtest > because it depends on KVM enabled at configure time (as opposed to > runtime) to have the device available. > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/336367/ > > As others have stated before, the nahanni server seems unmaintained, > thus not getting packaged by SUSE either and making testing the > interrupt parts of ivshmem difficult - unless we sort out and fill > with actual test code my proposed qtest. Thanks for the RFC patch. About ivshmem server, yes I will look at it. I will see what I can propose or if importing nahanni implementation as-is is the best solution. Anyway, first, documentation. -- David Marchand