From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpeng2@huawei.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
luonengjun@huawei.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com,
stefanha@redhat.com, denglingli@chinamobile.com,
Jani.Kokkonen@huawei.com, Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com,
Varun.Sethi@freescale.com, xin.zeng@intel.com,
brian.a.keating@intel.com, liang.j.ma@intel.com,
john.griffin@intel.com, weidong.huang@huawei.com, agraf@suse.de,
jasowang@redhat.com, vincent.jardin@6wind.com,
arei.gonglei@huawei.com, wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com,
jianjay.zhou@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [v23 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add virtio crypto device specification
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:27:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180316181953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcb63fc3-22eb-7f6c-2014-744ee75784eb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:05:41PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > +\item[\field{max_cipher_key_len}] is the maximum length of cipher key supported by the device.
>
> I can't find what happens if this limit isn't honored by the driver. Moreover
> reading it is only SHOULD. Is it undefined behavior or should the device reject/fail
> such requests? I think in qemu implementation we fail the request.
>
> This question is only about niceness. We are already good enough, IMHO:
> since the implementer of the driver can't be sure what is going to happen
> if the driver disregards max_cipher_key_len it is already an implicit
> SHOULD.
I am not sure documenting undefined behaviour is always required.
We certainly do not do this for all other devices.
Reading a field being SHOULD seems reasonable: e.g.
driver might read it once and cache it in memory.
Halil, could you try to split your comments between requirements
for more conformance clauses/clarifications as opposed to
defects where it's wrong and does not match actual or
expected behaviour?
I think spec is better off with some documentation for this
device than none at all like today.
--
MST
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpeng2@huawei.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
luonengjun@huawei.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com,
stefanha@redhat.com, denglingli@chinamobile.com,
Jani.Kokkonen@huawei.com, Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com,
Varun.Sethi@freescale.com, xin.zeng@intel.com,
brian.a.keating@intel.com, liang.j.ma@intel.com,
john.griffin@intel.com, weidong.huang@huawei.com, agraf@suse.de,
jasowang@redhat.com, vincent.jardin@6wind.com,
arei.gonglei@huawei.com, wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com,
jianjay.zhou@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [v23 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add virtio crypto device specification
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:27:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180316181953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcb63fc3-22eb-7f6c-2014-744ee75784eb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:05:41PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > +\item[\field{max_cipher_key_len}] is the maximum length of cipher key supported by the device.
>
> I can't find what happens if this limit isn't honored by the driver. Moreover
> reading it is only SHOULD. Is it undefined behavior or should the device reject/fail
> such requests? I think in qemu implementation we fail the request.
>
> This question is only about niceness. We are already good enough, IMHO:
> since the implementer of the driver can't be sure what is going to happen
> if the driver disregards max_cipher_key_len it is already an implicit
> SHOULD.
I am not sure documenting undefined behaviour is always required.
We certainly do not do this for all other devices.
Reading a field being SHOULD seems reasonable: e.g.
driver might read it once and cache it in memory.
Halil, could you try to split your comments between requirements
for more conformance clauses/clarifications as opposed to
defects where it's wrong and does not match actual or
expected behaviour?
I think spec is better off with some documentation for this
device than none at all like today.
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-16 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-30 9:35 [Qemu-devel] [v23 0/2] virtio-crypto: virtio crypto device specification Longpeng(Mike)
2017-12-30 9:35 ` [Qemu-devel] [v23 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add " Longpeng(Mike)
2018-01-09 17:05 ` [virtio-dev] " Halil Pasic
2018-01-09 17:05 ` Halil Pasic
2018-01-09 17:41 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-01-09 17:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-01-10 5:53 ` [virtio-dev] " Longpeng (Mike)
2018-01-10 5:53 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2018-06-20 3:34 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-06-20 3:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-06-20 6:15 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2018-03-16 16:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2018-03-16 16:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-03-16 18:18 ` [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] " Halil Pasic
2018-03-16 18:18 ` [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] " Halil Pasic
2018-03-19 0:13 ` [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-03-19 0:13 ` [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-07-20 12:01 ` [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] " Longpeng (Mike)
2018-07-20 12:01 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2018-07-26 16:55 ` [virtio-dev] " Halil Pasic
2018-07-26 16:55 ` Halil Pasic
2018-07-27 0:59 ` [virtio-dev] " Longpeng (Mike)
2018-07-27 0:59 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2018-07-27 11:51 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-07-27 11:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-08-01 20:21 ` [virtio-dev] " Halil Pasic
2018-08-01 20:21 ` Halil Pasic
2018-08-02 1:56 ` [virtio-dev] " Longpeng (Mike)
2018-08-02 1:56 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2017-12-30 9:35 ` [virtio-dev] [v23 2/2] virtio-crypto: Add conformance clauses Longpeng(Mike)
2017-12-30 9:35 ` [Qemu-devel] " Longpeng(Mike)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180316181953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=Jani.Kokkonen@huawei.com \
--cc=Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com \
--cc=Varun.Sethi@freescale.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=arei.gonglei@huawei.com \
--cc=brian.a.keating@intel.com \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=denglingli@chinamobile.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=jianjay.zhou@huawei.com \
--cc=john.griffin@intel.com \
--cc=liang.j.ma@intel.com \
--cc=longpeng2@huawei.com \
--cc=luonengjun@huawei.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=vincent.jardin@6wind.com \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=weidong.huang@huawei.com \
--cc=xin.zeng@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.