From:   "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
CC:     "sgarzare@redhat.com" <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "kys@microsoft.com" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
        "srutherford@google.com" <srutherford@google.com>,
        "erdemaktas@google.com" <erdemaktas@google.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC] hypercall-vsock: add a new vsock transport
Thread-Topic: [RFC] hypercall-vsock: add a new vsock transport
Thread-Index: AdfR7PQwhDKKIu84SJaS6/iA/MsV5gD8LVgAADoZqGA=
Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:58:29 +0000
Message-ID: <dcaf10bed215456ab689956275d4b998@intel.com>
References: <71d7b0463629471e9d4887d7fcef1d8d@intel.com>
 <20211110054121-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20211110054121-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-reaction: no-action
dlp-version: 11.6.200.16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 6:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:12:36AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>
> hypercalls are fundamentally hypervisor dependent though.

Yes, each hypervisor needs to support it.
We could simplify the design and implementation to the minimal, so that each hypervisor can easily support it.
Once every hypervisor has the support, the guest (MigTD) could be a unified version.
(e.g. no need for each hypervisor user to develop their own MigTD using their own vsock transport)

> Assuming you can carve up a hypervisor independent hypercall, using it for
> something as mundane and specific as vsock for TDX seems like a huge overkill.
> For example, virtio could benefit from faster vmexits that hypercalls give you
> for signalling.
> How about a combination of virtio-mmio and hypercalls for fast-path signalling
> then?

We thought about virtio-mmio. There are some barriers:
1) It wasn't originally intended for x86 machines. The only machine type in QEMU
that supports it (to run on x86) is microvm. But "microvm" doesn’t support TDX currently,
and adding this support might need larger effort.
2) It's simpler than virtio-pci, but still more complex than hypercall.
3) Some CSPs don't have virtio support in their software, so this might add too much development effort for them.

This usage doesn’t need high performance, so faster hypercall for signalling isn't required, I think.
(but if hypercall has been verified to be much faster than the current EPT misconfig based notification,
it could be added for the general virtio usages)

> 
> > 2)       It is simpler. It doesn’t rely on any complex bus enumeration
> >
> > (e.g. virtio-pci based vsock device may need the whole implementation of
> PCI).
> >
> 
> Next thing people will try to do is implement a bunch of other device on top of
> it.  virtio used pci simply because everyone implements pci.  And the reason
> for *that* is because implementing a basic pci bus is dead simple, whole of
> pci.c in qemu is <3000 LOC.

This doesn’t include the PCI enumeration in seaBIOS and the PCI driver in the guest though.

Virtio has high performance, I think that's an important reason that more devices are continually added.
For this transport, I couldn’t envision that a bunch of devices would be added. It's a simple PV method.


> 
> >
> > An example usage is the communication between MigTD and host (Page 8
> > at
> >
> > https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/kvmforum2021/ef/
> > TDX%20Live%20Migration_Wei%20Wang.pdf).
> >
> > MigTD communicates to host to assist the migration of the target (user) TD.
> >
> > MigTD is part of the TCB, so its implementation is expected to be as
> > simple as possible
> >
> > (e.g. bare mental implementation without OS, no PCI driver support).
> >
> >
> 
> Try to list drawbacks? For example, passthrough for nested virt isn't possible
> unlike pci, neither are hardware implementations.
> 

Why hypercall wouldn't be possible for nested virt?
L2 hypercall goes to L0 directly and L0 can decide whether to forward the call the L1 (in our case, I think no need as the packet will go out), right?

Its drawbacks are obvious (e.g. low performance). 
In general, I think it could be considered as a complement to virtio.
I think most usages would choose virtio as they don’t worry about the complexity and they purse high performance.
For some special usages that think virtio is too complex to suffice and they want something simpler, they would consider to use this transport。

Thanks,
Wei