From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965851AbXDBU5L (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:57:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965866AbXDBU5K (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:57:10 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:47288 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965865AbXDBU5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:57:09 -0400 Message-ID: <46116E12.5070206@goop.org> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:56:50 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com, Virtualization Mailing List Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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