Re: [PATCH 3/6] vsock: add netdev to vhost/virtio vsock

Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-08-17T17:20:39Z

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:50:55AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > > Eh, I was hoping it was a side channel of an existing virtio_net
> > > > which is not the case. Given the zero-config requirement IDK if
> > > > we'll be able to fit this into netdev semantics :(
> > >
> > > It's certainly possible that it may not fit :/ I feel that it partially
> > > depends on what we mean by zero-config. Is it "no config required to
> > > have a working socket" or is it "no config required, but also no
> > > tuning/policy/etc... supported"?
> >
> > The value of tuning vs confusion of a strange netdev floating around
> > in the system is hard to estimate upfront.
>
> I think "a strange netdev floating around" is a total
> mischaracterization... vsock is a networking device and it supports
> vsock networks. Sure, it is a virtual device and the routing is done in
> host software, but the same is true for virtio-net and VM-to-VM vlan.
>
> This patch actually uses netdev for its intended purpose: to support and
> manage the transmission of packets via a network device to a network.
>
> Furthermore, it actually prepares vsock to eliminate a "strange" use of
> a netdev. The netdev in vsockmon isn't even used to transmit
> packets, it's "floating around" for no other reason than it is needed to
> support packet capture, which vsock couldn't support because it didn't
> have a netdev.
>
> Something smells when we are required to build workaround kernel modules
> that use netdev for ciphoning packets off to userspace, when we could
> instead be using netdev for its intended purpose and get the same and
> more benefit.

So what happens when userspace inevitably attempts to bind a raw
packet socket to this device? Assign it an IP? Set up some firewall
rules?

These things all need to be addressed before merging since they affect UAPI.

> >
> > The nice thing about using a built-in fq with no user visible knobs is
> > that there's no extra uAPI. We can always rip it out and replace later.
> > And it shouldn't be controversial, making the path to upstream smoother.
>
> The issue is that after pulling in fq for one kind of flow management,
> then as users observe other flow issues, we will need to re-implement
> pfifo, and then TBF, and then we need to build an interface to let users
> select one, and to choose queue sizes... and then after awhile we've
> needlessly re-implemented huge chunks of the tc system.
>
> I don't see any good reason to restrict vsock users to using suboptimal
> and rigid queuing.
>
> Thanks.