Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On the subject of virtualization; there are a number of devices which
> keep being invented and reinvented by just about every virtualization
> vendor for no really good reason.
>
> I personally recently pointed out that a proper virtualization
> solution should handle entropy collection at the lowest level (where
> the physical hardware drivers are) and present a hw_rng interface to
> the guests. Unfortunately, none of the hardware-based hw_rng
> interfaces is sane enough to do that with, which calls for a virtual
> driver.
>
> It would be nice if there was one, and not a dozen, such drivers.
>
> I would therefore like to propose that the Linux Foundation register a
> PCI ID for use by LANANA ($3000/year), and we set up a LANANA registry
> for these device IDs, together with a description of the device
> interface each of them expect.  Similarly, a Subsystem ID registry can
> be used (for virtualization vendors which don't have their own VID
> already) to distinguish different implementations.
>
> Obviously, anyone who adheres to the published interface can use one
> of these VID:DIDs -- as far as I'm concerned, even hardware vendors;
> we'll use the SID to distinguish between implementations. 

How would that work in the case where virtualized guests don't have a
visible PCI bus, and the virtual environment doesn't pretend to emulate
a PCI bus?

    J