[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4946717F.2090809@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: gleb@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication.
David Miller wrote:
> From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.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 security reasons
>> or TCP/IP traffic can be firewalled (by mistake) by unsuspecting VM user.
>>
>
> I don't really accept this argument, sorry.
>
I couldn't agree more. That doesn't mean I don't think this isn't
valuable though.
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 have reliability.
If you use a protocol to get reliability (like TCP), you now have to
implement a full TCP/IP stack in userspace or get the host kernel
involved. I'd rather not get the host kernel involved from a security
perspective.
An inherently reliable socket transport solves the above problem while
keeping things simple. Note, this is not a new concept. There is
already an AF_IUCV for s390. VMware is also developing an AF_VMCI
socket family.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists