From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-dev-return-6771-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC35A985CA6 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:25:42 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon Message-ID: <20200224152542.65830458@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: <20200224145743.76b55a97@collabora.com> References: <20200207182842.770bfb27@collabora.com> <20200217145835.0bd7b028@collabora.com> <20200217192150.07f9e253@collabora.com> <20200224113348.356d8cb8@collabora.com> <20200224121255.upo5fjcy24h4gyc6@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <20200224134513.660fb144@collabora.com> <20200224141835.798fac4e@collabora.com> <20200224134231.75jsws2qnkpzl274@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <20200224145743.76b55a97@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] Upstreaming virtio-wayland (or an alternative) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Zach Reizner , Stefan Hajnoczi , Zach Reizner , David Stevens , =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5l?= Marchesin , Tomeu Vizoso , Tomasz Figa , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Alexandros Frantzis List-ID: On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:57:43 +0100 Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:42:31 +0100 > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >=20 > > Hi, > > =20 > > > > But let's say we go for a dedicated virtio-device to preserve this > > > > granularity. Should we aim at providing a generic virtio-msg device= or > > > > should we keep this so-called wayland-specific virtio device (I'd l= ike > > > > to remind you that it's actually protocol-agnostic)? =20 > > >=20 > > > Maybe there's another option (not sure I mentioned it previously): > > > de-correlate the message passing and fd-passing interfaces. If we add= a > > > virtio-fd device that takes care of FD passing between guest and host= , > > > we can still use a regular vsock to pass messages (can be vhost or > > > !vhost depending on your level of parano=C3=AFa). The wayland proxies= would > > > then queue/dequeue messages to/from the vsock and FDs to/from virtio-= fd. =20 > >=20 > > Hmm, I suspect supporting unix socket passing (by creating a tunnel for > > them) is going to be tricky in with that approach. =20 >=20 > Yes, If you want a generic vsock <-> unix proxy, you'll have to > encapsulate the 'message+number of FDs passed' information so the other > end knows how many FDs should be dequeued on the virtio-fd dev. The > other option being to implement proxies that can parse the messages and > extract the 'number of FDs' from there. Nevermind, I misunderstood your concern. Indeed, supporting unix FD passing would be trickier (you'd need to attach both a vosck and a virtio-fd instance). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org