Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:48:58 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: Wei Hu <whu@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r361275 - in head/sys: conf dev/hyperv/hvsock dev/hyperv/include dev/hyperv/vmbus modules/hyperv modules/hyperv/hvsock sys Message-ID: <CACNAnaHPwpERt9ipy17c%2BSfVQ-EhrtmW7rwhoxTRWwQCCbx%2BoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaFJ5b-LoCCa7RZFuHKhsZ5mxd1hwmyXv-h3%2BQ26s0hGzQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <202005201103.04KB3xTp013965@repo.freebsd.org> <CACNAnaFJ5b-LoCCa7RZFuHKhsZ5mxd1hwmyXv-h3%2BQ26s0hGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:12 AM Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:04 AM Wei Hu <whu@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > Author: whu > > Date: Wed May 20 11:03:59 2020 > > New Revision: 361275 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361275 > > > > Log: > > HyperV socket implementation for FreeBSD > > > > This change adds Hyper-V socket feature in FreeBSD. New socket address > > family AF_HYPERV and its kernel support are added. > > > > [... snip ...] > > +void > > +hvs_trans_init(void) > > +{ > > + /* Skip initialization of globals for non-default instances. */ > > + if (!IS_DEFAULT_VNET(curvnet)) > > + return; > > + > > + if (vm_guest != VM_GUEST_HV) > > + return; > > + > > + HVSOCK_DBG(HVSOCK_DBG_VERBOSE, > > + "%s: HyperV Socket hvs_trans_init called\n", __func__); > > + > > + /* Initialize Globals */ > > + previous_auto_bound_port = MAX_PORT; > > + sx_init(&hvs_trans_socks_sx, "hvs_trans_sock_sx"); > > + mtx_init(&hvs_trans_socks_mtx, > > + "hvs_trans_socks_mtx", NULL, MTX_DEF); > > + LIST_INIT(&hvs_trans_bound_socks); > > + LIST_INIT(&hvs_trans_connected_socks); > > +} > > + > > I have a suspicion that all of these should really be per-vnet for > correct semantics with VIMAGE, with the IS_DEFAULT_VNET check earlier > dropped completely. I haven't read around the rest all that much, but > this would at least seem to prevent port re-use by a different vnet, > which is perhaps "good enough" but I think this is something that > should be fixed in the mid-term. > I have a follow-up concern about whether this is actually going to be maintained... it's been a full week with not even an acknowledgement or rebuttal of any of the concerns I've raised, with some of them being completely trivial to address in the short-term. I don't think that we really want this in the tree in its current state given this level of engagement. Thanks, Kyle Evanshelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaHPwpERt9ipy17c%2BSfVQ-EhrtmW7rwhoxTRWwQCCbx%2BoA>