Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:01:56 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] vsock: use local transport when it is loaded
Message-ID: <20191121100156.v4ehwmstlhujrviv@steredhat>
References: <20191119110121.14480-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20191119110121.14480-6-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20191121094614.GC439743@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191121094614.GC439743@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:46:14AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:01:20PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > @@ -420,9 +436,10 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk,=
 struct vsock_sock *psk)
> >  =09=09new_transport =3D transport_dgram;
> >  =09=09break;
> >  =09case SOCK_STREAM:
> > -=09=09if (remote_cid <=3D VMADDR_CID_HOST ||
> > -=09=09    (transport_g2h &&
> > -=09=09     remote_cid =3D=3D transport_g2h->get_local_cid()))
> > +=09=09if (vsock_use_local_transport(remote_cid))
> > +=09=09=09new_transport =3D transport_local;
> > +=09=09else if (remote_cid =3D=3D VMADDR_CID_HOST ||
> > +=09=09=09 remote_cid =3D=3D VMADDR_CID_HYPERVISOR)
> >  =09=09=09new_transport =3D transport_g2h;
> >  =09=09else
> >  =09=09=09new_transport =3D transport_h2g;
>=20
> We used to send VMADDR_CID_RESERVED to the host.  Now we send
> VMADDR_CID_RESERVED (LOCAL) to the guest when there is no
> transport_local loaded?
>=20
> If this is correct, is there a justification for this change?  It seems
> safest to retain existing behavior.

You're right, I'll revert this change in v2.

Thanks,
Stefano