Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] Upstreaming virtio-wayland (or an alternative)

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:57:43 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:42:31 +0100
> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >   Hi,
> >   
> > > > But let's say we go for a dedicated virtio-device to preserve this
> > > > granularity. Should we aim at providing a generic virtio-msg device or
> > > > should we keep this so-called wayland-specific virtio device (I'd like
> > > > to remind you that it's actually protocol-agnostic)?    
> > > 
> > > Maybe there's another option (not sure I mentioned it previously):
> > > de-correlate the message passing and fd-passing interfaces. If we add a
> > > virtio-fd device that takes care of FD passing between guest and host,
> > > we can still use a regular vsock to pass messages (can be vhost or
> > > !vhost depending on your level of paranoïa). The wayland proxies would
> > > then queue/dequeue messages to/from the vsock and FDs to/from virtio-fd.    
> > 
> > Hmm, I suspect supporting unix socket passing (by creating a tunnel for
> > them) is going to be tricky in with that approach.  
> 
> Yes, If you want a generic vsock <-> unix proxy, you'll have to
> encapsulate the 'message+number of FDs passed' information so the other
> end knows how many FDs should be dequeued on the virtio-fd dev. The
> other option being to implement proxies that can parse the messages and
> extract the 'number of FDs' from there.

Nevermind, I misunderstood your concern. Indeed, supporting unix FD
passing would be trickier (you'd need to attach both a vosck and a
virtio-fd instance).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org