From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] vmchannel a data channel between host and guest. Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:54:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20081016085449.GU11435@redhat.com> References: <20081012124534.GK11435@redhat.com> <48F39443.4070203@codemonkey.ws> <20081014090540.GB13153@redhat.com> <48F4A3B8.8050603@us.ibm.com> <20081014175900.GA18344@redhat.com> <48F4E1F3.3050606@codemonkey.ws> <20081015125837.GQ11435@redhat.com> <20081015141852.GA19554@vmware.com> <20081015154212.GS11435@redhat.com> <48F61292.9020504@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Biggadike , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Rusty Russell , virtualization , Zach Amsden , Anupam Chanda To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:21514 "EHLO il.qumranet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753193AbYJPIyv (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:54:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48F61292.9020504@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:56:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gleb Natapov wrote: >> Andrew, >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:18:52AM -0700, Andrew Biggadike wrote: >> >>> Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>>>> Of course, you should also take a look at VMware's VMCI. If we're going >>>>> to have a socket interface, if we can have a compatible userspace >>>>> interface, that would probably be a good thing. >>>>> >>>> I looked at what I could find about VMCI (http://pubs.vmware.com/vmci-sdk/index.html). >>>> >>> I believe Anthony intended for you to look at the sockets interface to >>> VMCI: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/ws65_s2_vmci_sockets.pdf. >>> >>> >> Using VMCI socket requires loading kernel module in a guest and in a host. >> Is this correct? >> > > Note that their addressing scheme uses a CID/port pair. I think it's > interesting and somewhat safe because it basically mirrors an IP/port > pair. That makes it relatively safe because that addressing mechanism > is well known (with it's advantages and flaws). For instance, you need > some sort of authority to assign out ports. It doesn't really help with > discovery either. > I fails to see how this is more safe that what I propose. Same problem exactly: which ID/port to use for my service? But I also don't want to compare proposed vmchannel and VMCI socket. They try to solve different problems as far as I can see. VMCI tries to address intra host communication performance problem (what about migration of a guest using it BTW? Or security? Firewalls know nothing about it). vmchannel goal is to provide management tools a way to communicate with in guest agents. -- Gleb.