[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c759c222-34a5-7ee6-933a-457bb98bab81@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:24:00 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"kys@...rosoft.com" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
Sergio Lopez Pascual <slp@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hypercall-vsock: add a new vsock transport
On 11/11/21 09:14, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>> Adding Andra and Sergio, because IIRC Firecracker and libkrun
>> emulates virtio-vsock with virtio-mmio so the implementation
>> should be simple and also not directly tied to a specific VMM.
>>
> OK. This would be OK for KVM based guests. For Hyperv and VMWare
> based guests, they don't have virtio-mmio support. If the MigTD (a
> special guest) we provide is based on virtio-mmio, it would not be
> usable to them.
Hyper-V and VMware (and KVM) would have to add support for
hypercall-vsock anyway. Why can't they just implement a subset of
virtio-mmio? It's not hard and there's even plenty of permissively-
licensed code in the various VMMs for the *BSDs.
In fact, instead of defining your own transport for vsock, my first idea
would have been the opposite: reuse virtio-mmio for the registers and
the virtqueue format, and define your own virtio device for the MigTD!
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists