search for: protocol_features

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3575 Bug ID: 3575 Summary: wrong usage message: "-Q protocol_feature" is an invalid query type Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 9.2p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2089 Bug ID: 2089 Summary: filter out bad host key algorithms Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.1p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous

...;t we need a feature bit for this? > > Yes we need it. The feature bit is not considered in this patch and > looks like it was still under discussion. After we finalize it, I will add. > > > Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add > > something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. > > > > I believe it can just work like VERSION_1, or is there anything I missed? VERSION_1 is a virtio feature though. This one would be backend specific ... -- MST

...;t we need a feature bit for this? > > Yes we need it. The feature bit is not considered in this patch and > looks like it was still under discussion. After we finalize it, I will add. > > > Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add > > something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. > > > > I believe it can just work like VERSION_1, or is there anything I missed? VERSION_1 is a virtio feature though. This one would be backend specific ... -- MST

...t, or tap device. > Don't we need a feature bit for this? Yes we need it. The feature bit is not considered in this patch and looks like it was still under discussion. After we finalize it, I will add. > Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add > something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. > I believe it can just work like VERSION_1, or is there anything I missed?

...ast optionally to make userspace make its own threading decisions. > /* VHOST_NET specific defines */ > > /* Attach virtio net ring to a raw socket, or tap device. Don't we need a feature bit for this? Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. > -- > 2.5.0

...ast optionally to make userspace make its own threading decisions. > /* VHOST_NET specific defines */ > > /* Attach virtio net ring to a raw socket, or tap device. Don't we need a feature bit for this? Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. > -- > 2.5.0

...a feature bit for this? >> Yes we need it. The feature bit is not considered in this patch and >> looks like it was still under discussion. After we finalize it, I will add. >> >>> Are we short on feature bits? If yes maybe it's time to add >>> something like PROTOCOL_FEATURES that we have in vhost-user. >>> >> I believe it can just work like VERSION_1, or is there anything I missed? > VERSION_1 is a virtio feature though. This one would be backend specific > ... Any differences? Consider we want feature to be something like VIRTIO_F_HOST_IOMMU, vho...

This patch tries to implement an device IOTLB for vhost. This could be used with for co-operation with userspace(qemu) implementation of iommu for a secure DMA environment (DMAR) in guest. The idea is simple. When vhost meets an IOTLB miss, it will request the assistance of userspace to do the translation, this is done through: - Fill the translation request in a preset userspace address (This

This patch tries to implement an device IOTLB for vhost. This could be used with for co-operation with userspace(qemu) implementation of iommu for a secure DMA environment (DMAR) in guest. The idea is simple. When vhost meets an IOTLB miss, it will request the assistance of userspace to do the translation, this is done through: - Fill the translation request in a preset userspace address (This