Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:20:19 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@gmail.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Toke =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] vsock: add netdev to vhost/virtio vsock
Message-ID: <20220817131437-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <cover.1660362668.git.bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>
 <5a93c5aad99d79f028d349cb7e3c128c65d5d7e2.1660362668.git.bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>
 <20220816123701-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20220816110717.5422e976@kernel.org>
 <YvtAktdB09tM0Ykr@bullseye>
 <20220816160755.7eb11d2e@kernel.org>
 <YvtVN195TS1xpEN7@bullseye>
 <20220816181528.5128bc06@kernel.org>
 <Yvt2f5i5R9NNNYUL@bullseye>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yvt2f5i5R9NNNYUL@bullseye>
Precedence: bulk

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.