> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org [mailto:xen-devel- > boun...@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > Sent: 04 January 2016 20:19 > To: Paul Durrant > Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Ian Campbell; Tim (Xen.org); David Vrabel; Jan Beulich; > Ian > Jackson; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] public/io/netif.h: document control > ring and toeplitz hashing > > > > You've put the consumer values into the shared page. I'd rather not have > > > to scrutinize your shared ring implementation for other security bugs. > > > Similarly, if there's another security issues like XSA-155 I'd rather > > > not have to look at another non-standard shared ring implementation. > > > > Ok. That's a good enough reason. I'll come up with a new prototype. > > Could I suggest that you make this a more generic one? That is not > just limited to network out of band - but other drivers could > use it as well. >
Well, if I use the usual balanced ring macros then they are already common. The next level is the actual message format and content, which is clearly going to be specific to a particular use-case. Paul > > > > > > > > > IMO, it's you who should be presenting compelling reasons for /not/ > > > using the standard infrastructure, not the other way around. > > > > > > > There is no 'standard' here though. There's convention, but that's a > different thing. If we're going to have a 'no more variable size message > protocols' policy than that needs writing down somewhere. > > > > Paul > > > > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
