Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace

Stefano Garzarella
2025-03-06T08:23:20Z

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 02:37, Lei Yang <leiyang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> QE tested this series patch with virtio-net regression tests,
> everything works fine.
>
> Tested-by: Lei Yang <leiyang@redhat.com>

Sorry, but this test doesn't involve virtio-net at all, so what is the
point on testing it with virtio-net?

Thanks,
Stefano

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 8:17 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 5:30 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:27:12AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:39:02PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > >> I think it might be a lot of complexity to bring into the picture from
> > > >> netdev, and I'm not sure there is a big win since the vsock device could
> > > >> also have a vsock->net itself? I think the complexity will come from the
> > > >> address translation, which I don't think netdev buys us because there
> > > >> would still be all of the work work to support vsock in netfilter?
> > > >
> > > >Ugh.
> > > >
> > > >Guys, let's remember what vsock is.
> > > >
> > > >It's a replacement for the serial device with an interface
> > > >that's easier for userspace to consume, as you get
> > > >the demultiplexing by the port number.
> >
> > Interesting, but at least VSOCKETS said:
> >
> > """
> > config VSOCKETS
> > tristate "Virtual Socket protocol"
> > help
> > Virtual Socket Protocol is a socket protocol similar to TCP/IP
> > allowing communication between Virtual Machines and hypervisor
> > or host.
> >
> > You should also select one or more hypervisor-specific transports
> > below.
> >
> > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > will be called vsock. If unsure, say N.
> > """
> >
> > This sounds exactly like networking stuff and spec also said something similar
> >
> > """
> > The virtio socket device is a zero-configuration socket communications
> > device. It facilitates data transfer between the guest and device
> > without using the Ethernet or IP protocols.
> > """
> >
> > > >
> > > >The whole point of vsock is that people do not want
> > > >any firewalling, filtering, or management on it.
> >
> > We won't get this, these are for ethernet and TCP/IP mostly.
> >
> > > >
> > > >It needs to work with no configuration even if networking is
> > > >misconfigured or blocked.
> >
> > I don't see any blockers that prevent us from zero configuration, or I
> > miss something?
> >
> > >
> > > I agree with Michael here.
> > >
> > > It's been 5 years and my memory is bad, but using netdev seemed like a
> > > mess, especially because in vsock we don't have anything related to
> > > IP/Ethernet/ARP, etc.
> >
> > We don't need to bother with that, kernel support protocols other than TCP/IP.
> >
> > >
> > > I see vsock more as AF_UNIX than netdev.
> >
> > But you have a device in guest that differs from the AF_UNIX.
> >
> > >
> > > I put in CC Jakub who was covering network namespace, maybe he has some
> > > advice for us regarding this. Context [1].
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stefano
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z8edJjqAqAaV3Vkt@devvm6277.cco0.facebook.com/
> > >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>