[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] virtio crypto device implemenation
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] virtio crypto device implemenation |
Date: |
Wed, 24 May 2017 04:13:47 +0300 |
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +0000, Zeng, Xin wrote:
> Hi, Michael,
> As you know, Lei Gong from Huawei and I are co-working on virtio crypto
> device spec, he is focusing on symmetric algorithm part, I am focusing on
> asymmetric part. Now I am planning the implementation for asymmetric part,
> would you please give me your point regarding the questions below?
> Current virtio crypto device implementation from Lei Gong:
> The virtio crypto device implementation has been upstreamed to QEMU and it
> has a qemu backend implementation for symmetric algorithm part, the front end
> Linux device driver for symmetric part has been upstreamed to Linux kernel as
> well.
> My questions:
> From my side, I planned to add the asymmetric part support in upstreamed
> front end device driver, and I don't want to add the asymmetric algorithm
> support to current virtio crypto device's qemu backend, instead, I would like
> to implement and upstream a DPDK vhost-user based backend for asymmetric
> algorithm, and accordingly Lei Gong will help to upstream a vhost user agent
> for virtio crypto device in QEMU, is this approach acceptable? Is a qemu
> backend a mandatory requirement for the virtio crypto device? Is there a
> general policy for this?
>
> Thanks
Parity on QEMU side is naturally preferable. I don't think we should require it
at all times, but if there's no implementation outside vhost-user,
and if the feature includes a non-trivial amount of code, how
will it be tested? I don't think we want to require all testers to use
dpdk. An implementation under tests using libvhost-user might
be a solution.
--
MST