From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5614622F02 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73C7DC433C8; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1691704855; bh=s5QIG+X19estRlbIsKWn9bmkPv61euAyFKFlJLfA9uA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YmW+gMTn+RNUvBFT+Vxz6ayGWIm7w8UdC/fGyXCmtPb2ORtcqxu3CVWLSib/XFoiT +b79K5P5RkyvSfakLAbmiDgwqPs5bjBVCn90e2Lg4hSJlmqDIZh2Hm0FMwGoUvOoJs 2m1nw2CJqyULtvqdgft3Fmj5v+QHCnov9Y+dWcP/awKQj4/jPkdPum2FmysCV2Hytd XPLKEc/z/48d3fYkc9XXV70vdjOA2kb69sFq3UaeKfsG0RjF6YA23BMjm2Z0TAinza i68lPdEiioUMvSAjNNUPgWbcSr0GpeR86tviPqfqdRRSE5mL/+cMrtKvBLSpApbumS r4hkpAc+TSLpg== Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:00:54 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Maxime Coquelin , xieyongji@bytedance.com, jasowang@redhat.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, lulu@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, eperezma@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] vduse: add support for networking devices Message-ID: <20230810150054.7baf34b7@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20230810174021-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20230705100430.61927-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20230810150347-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20230810142949.074c9430@kernel.org> <20230810174021-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:42:11 -0400 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Directly into the stack? I thought VDUSE is vDPA in user space, > > meaning to get to the kernel the packet has to first go thru > > a virtio-net instance. > > yes. is that a sufficient filter in your opinion? Yes, the ability to create the device feels stronger than CAP_NET_RAW, and a bit tangential to CAP_NET_ADMIN. But I don't have much practical experience with virt so no strong opinion, perhaps it does make sense for someone's deployment? Dunno..