From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication. Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:44:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20081214.224436.55256593.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20081214115054.4066.14557.stgit@dhcp-1-237.tlv.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: gleb@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:58434 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257AbYLOGof (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:44:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081214115054.4066.14557.stgit@dhcp-1-237.tlv.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Gleb Natapov 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. If you can't use TCP because it might be security protected or misconfigured, adding this new stream protocol thing is not one bit better. It doesn't make any sense at all. Also, if TCP could be "misconfigured" this new thing could just as easily be screwed up too. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a whole bunch of SELINUX and netfilter features proposed later for this and then we're back to square one. You guys really need to rethink this. Either a stream protocol is a workable solution to your problem, or it isn't. And don't bring up any "virtualization is special because..." arguments into your reply because virtualization has nothing to do with my objections stated above.