Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Liguori
David Miller wrote: From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:55 +0200 It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this purpose since network connectivity may not exist between host and guest and if it exists the traffic can be not routable between host and guest for

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
Hi Gleb. On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:50:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com) wrote: There is a need for communication channel between host and various agents that are running inside a VM guest. The channel will be used for statistic gathering, logging, cut paste, host screen resolution

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Anthony Liguori wrote: David Miller wrote: From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:55 +0200 It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this purpose since network connectivity may not exist between host and guest and if it exists the traffic can be not routable

RE: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Itamar Heim
-Original Message- From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Fitzhardinge The trouble is that it presumes that the host and guest (or whoever the endpoints are) are on the same physical machine and will remain that way. Given that live

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600 There is already an AF_IUCV for s390. This is a scarecrow and irrelevant to this discussion. And this is exactly why I asked that any arguments in this thread avoid talking about virtualization technology and why

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Liguori
David Miller wrote: From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600 There is already an AF_IUCV for s390. This is a scarecrow and irrelevant to this discussion. And this is exactly why I asked that any arguments in this thread avoid talking

Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio: do not statically allocate root device

2008-12-15 Thread Rusty Russell
On Monday 15 December 2008 23:28:27 Mark McLoughlin wrote: We shouldn't be statically allocating the root device object, so dynamically allocate it using root_device_register() instead. This and 3/4 which would normally go through me: Acked-by: Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au Thanks

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:44:26 -0600 We want this communication mechanism to be simple and reliable as we want to implement the backends drivers in the host userspace with minimum mess. One implication of your statement here is that TCP is

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Anthony Liguori wrote: Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Each of these sockets are going to be connected to a backend (to implement guest=copy/paste for instance). We want to implement those backends in userspace and preferably in QEMU. Using some raw protocol over ethernet means you don't

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Liguori
David Miller wrote: From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:44:26 -0600 We want this communication mechanism to be simple and reliable as we want to implement the backends drivers in the host userspace with minimum mess. One implication of your

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Liguori
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Anthony Liguori wrote: That seems unnecessarily complex. Well, the simplest thing is to let the host TCP stack do TCP. Could you go into more detail about why you'd want to avoid that? The KVM model is that a guest is a process. Any IO operations original

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:01:14 -0600 Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote: David Miller wrote: From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:44:26 -0600 We want this communication mechanism to be simple and reliable as we want to implement the backends

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Liguori
David Miller wrote: From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:01:14 -0600 No, TCP falls under the not simple category because it requires the backend to have access to a TCP/IP stack. I'm at a loss for words if you need TCP in the hypervisor, if that's

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Anthony Liguori wrote: Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Anthony Liguori wrote: That seems unnecessarily complex. Well, the simplest thing is to let the host TCP stack do TCP. Could you go into more detail about why you'd want to avoid that? The KVM model is that a guest is a process. Any

Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest-host communication.

2008-12-15 Thread Dor Laor
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:08:29PM -0600, Anthony Liguori (anth...@codemonkey.ws) wrote: The KVM model is that a guest is a process. Any IO operations original from the process (QEMU). The advantage to this is that you get very good security because you can