On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:56:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:18:52AM -0700, Andrew Biggadike wrote:
>>
>>> Gleb Natapov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Of course, you should also take a look at VMware's VMCI. If we're going
>>>>> to have a socket interface, if we can have a compatible userspace
>>>>> interface, that would probably be a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>> I looked at what I could find about VMCI
>>>> (http://pubs.vmware.com/vmci-sdk/index.html).
>>>>
>>> I believe Anthony intended for you to look at the sockets interface to
>>> VMCI: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/ws65_s2_vmci_sockets.pdf.
>>>
>>>
>> Using VMCI socket requires loading kernel module in a guest and in a host.
>> Is this correct?
>>
>
> Note that their addressing scheme uses a CID/port pair. I think it's
> interesting and somewhat safe because it basically mirrors an IP/port
> pair. That makes it relatively safe because that addressing mechanism
> is well known (with it's advantages and flaws). For instance, you need
> some sort of authority to assign out ports. It doesn't really help with
> discovery either.
>
I fails to see how this is more safe that what I propose. Same problem
exactly: which ID/port to use for my service? But I also don't want to
compare proposed vmchannel and VMCI socket. They try to solve different
problems as far as I can see. VMCI tries to address intra host communication
performance problem (what about migration of a guest using it BTW? Or
security? Firewalls know nothing about it). vmchannel goal is to provide
management tools a way to communicate with in guest agents.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
