From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9B3C433F5 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36EC3610C8 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 36EC3610C8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B7481AAC; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sm4xAp9WaMnH; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010:104::8cd3:938]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95E5B8101B; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682D0C001F; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02B9C001E for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9968540503 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDbyl4Omi_5p for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F93240502 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10164"; a="232813131" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,225,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="232813131" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Nov 2021 00:02:32 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,225,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="602524452" Received: from fmsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.126.84]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2021 00:02:32 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx612.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.92) by fmsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.12; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:02:31 -0800 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.141) by fmsmsx612.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.12; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:02:30 -0800 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) by SHSMSX601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.012; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:02:28 +0800 From: "Wang, Wei W" To: Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: RE: [RFC] hypercall-vsock: add a new vsock transport Thread-Topic: [RFC] hypercall-vsock: add a new vsock transport Thread-Index: AdfR7PQwhDKKIu84SJaS6/iA/MsV5gD5igUAADxATEA= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: <03b779ac2f504fa989559f16e75817d3@intel.com> References: <71d7b0463629471e9d4887d7fcef1d8d@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-reaction: no-action dlp-version: 11.6.200.16 x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Yamahata, Isaku" , Andra Paraschiv , "mst@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Paolo Bonzini , "Kleen, Andi" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" X-BeenThere: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux virtualization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Virtualization" > From: Stefan Hajnoczi On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 5:35 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > AF_VSOCK is designed to allow multiple transports, so why not. There is a cost > to developing and maintaining a vsock transport though. Yes. The effort could be reduced via simplifying the design as much as possible: e.g. no ring operations - guest just sends a packet each time for the host to read. (this transport isn't targeting for high performance) > > I think Amazon Nitro enclaves use virtio-vsock and I've CCed Andra in case she > has thoughts on the pros/cons and how to minimize the trusted computing > base. Thanks for adding more related person to the discussion loop. > > If simplicity is the top priority then VIRTIO's MMIO transport without indirect > descriptors and using the packed virtqueue layout reduces the size of the > implementation: > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-1 > 440002 I listed some considerations for virtio-mmio in the response to Michael. Please have a check if any different thoughts. Thanks, Wei _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization