From: Jeremy White <jwhite@codeweavers.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] Add a usbredir kernel module to remotely connect USB devices over IP.
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:06:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559599C5.9030902@codeweavers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1507021550470.1320-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On 07/02/2015 02:59 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Jeremy White wrote:
>
>>>> I don't follow that analysis. The usbip interactions with the usb stack
>>>> all seem to be atomic, and never trigger a syscall, as far as I can
>>>> tell. A port reset will flip a few bits and return. A urb enqueue
>>>> queues and wakes a different thread, and returns. The alternate thread
>>>> performs the sendmsg.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not suggesting that running a storage device over usbip is
>>>> especially safe, but I don't see the limit on the design.
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the current code or the proposed user space pipe?
>>
>> I'm referring to current usbip code. But the proposed driver would have
>> the same behavior.
>>
>> To be clear, I think the only tangible new proposal is the one Hans put
>> forth, which would modify the driver I originally posted to use a
>> netlink socket instead of a passing a file descriptor in via sysfs.
>> That would allow the user space application responsible for initiating
>> the request to provide TLS as desired. It comes with the expense of an
>> extra memcpy, but I suspect Hans is right in saying the network
>> latencies make that an irrelevant cost.
>
> Oliver is talking about the danger of having part of the communication
> path for a block device run through userspace.
>
> Imagine a situation where the client uses a USB storage device provided
> by the server as a swap device. And suppose a userspace daemon on the
> client has to process USB packets as they pass between the client and
> the server. If the daemon is idle for some time, parts of its address
> space may get stored in the swap area on the server and paged out.
>
> Now consider what happens when those parts of memory need to be paged
> back in. The client submits a request to read from the swap area.
> The request is transformed into USB packets and sent through the
> userspace daemon for transmission to the server. But the daemon can't
> process the packets because it is waiting for its missing parts to be
> paged back! Result: deadlock.
Right. I followed that. Oliver also asserted that he believed that the
current usbip implementation has this flaw; I do not follow that. The
concept is that the usbip device driver virtualizes the device behavior;
isolating the running kernel from the vagaries of the network transport.
All proposed usbredir implementations, even if they move the network
transport to user space, would retain that behavior.
Cheers,
Jeremy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-02 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-30 21:44 [RFC PATCH 0/1] RFC - Implement a usbredir kernel module Jeremy White
2015-06-30 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] Add a usbredir kernel module to remotely connect USB devices over IP Jeremy White
2015-06-30 23:48 ` Greg KH
2015-07-01 3:34 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-01 5:44 ` Greg KH
2015-07-01 15:55 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-01 16:13 ` Greg KH
2015-07-01 18:39 ` Hans de Goede
2015-07-07 16:47 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-08 7:11 ` Hans de Goede
2015-07-09 0:19 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-01 9:06 ` [Spice-devel] " Daniel P. Berrange
2015-07-01 18:31 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-01 18:45 ` Hans de Goede
2015-07-02 8:45 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-07-02 11:35 ` Hans de Goede
2015-07-02 12:10 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-07-02 15:57 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-02 18:46 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-07-02 19:02 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-02 19:59 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-02 20:06 ` Jeremy White [this message]
2015-07-02 20:20 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-03 8:51 ` Krzysztof Opasiak
2015-07-03 14:04 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-06 8:20 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-07-06 20:14 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-06 20:22 ` Alan Stern
[not found] ` <mnlh2b$1cs$1@ger.gmane.org>
2015-07-22 14:03 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-22 14:34 ` Greg KH
2015-07-22 16:55 ` Jeremy White
2015-07-22 17:59 ` Sean O. Stalley
2015-07-23 0:20 ` Jeremy White
2015-12-09 22:32 ` Jeremy White
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=559599C5.9030902@codeweavers.com \
--to=jwhite@codeweavers.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oneukum@suse.com \
--cc=spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox