On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> 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. > 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. > - 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. And what about ORDER_PLATFORM, I don't think we can modify legacy drivers... Thanks > > -- > MST > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
