From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: export underlying socket Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:11:51 +0300 Message-ID: <20090914091151.GE14030@redhat.com> References: <20090910125929.GA32593@redhat.com> <15ddcffd0909140107m4d94f5abh5405074b654bd15d@mail.gmail.com> <20090914080923.GC14030@redhat.com> <4AADFC0A.30305@voltaire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au To: Or Gerlitz Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54514 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750870AbZINJNi (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:13:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AADFC0A.30305@voltaire.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:17:14AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:07:25AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> >>> vhost injects packets into physical device, what is the use case of vhost injecting packets into the host network stack? >>> >> The case where the user requires bridging, typically. >> > So you want to support a scheme where someone wants to attach vhost to a > bridge? why not just telling these users to just set their vhost on top > of veth couple, such that one veth device is added to a bridge as > interface and a vhost instance is tied to the other veth device? > > > Or. That's already possible. However virtualization users are familiar with configuring the tun device, and tun has grown virtualization-specific extensions, so I don't see a reason not to accomodate these uses. -- MST