On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:07:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/27/2010 03:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> I am not sure I agree with this sentiment. The main issue being that >> macvtap doesn't exist on all kernels :). > > Neither does vhost ;-) If it were just that as the difference, I'd be > inclined to agree, but macvtap is much better from a security PoV. > >>> Not to mention that from a user perspective, raw makes almost no sense >>> as it's an obscure socket protocol family. >>> >>> A user wants to do useful things like bridged networking or direct VF >>> assignment. We should have -net backends that reflect things that make >>> sense to a user. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anthony Liguori >>> >> >> I agree to that. People don't even seem to agree whether it's a raw >> socket or a packet socket :) We need a better name for this option: what >> it really does is rely on an external device to loopback a packet to us, >> so how about -net loopback or -net extbridge? >> > > Specifically for VEPA, something like: > > -net extbridge,if=eth0 > > or even > > -net vepa,if=eth0 > > Would be fantastic. extbridge is IMO better. > I think the best way to achieve this is to > introduce a small helper that gets called and can create a macvtap > device and hand the file descriptor back to qemu :-) A builtin backend > would also be fine since we don't have the helper infrastructure. Excellent. Sridhar, this is actually not a lot of work on top of what you already posted. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
