On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> I think -net socket,fd should just be (trivially) extended to work with raw > >> sockets out of the box, with no support for opening it. Then you can have > >> libvirt or some wrapper open a raw socket and a private namespace and just pass it > >> down. > >> > > That'd work. Anthony? > > The fundamental problem that I have with all of this is that we should > not be introducing new network backends that are based around something > only a developer is going to understand. If I'm a user and I want to > use an external switch in VEPA mode, how in the world am I going to know > that I'm supposed to use the -net raw backend or the -net socket > backend? It might as well be the -net butterflies backend as far as a > user is concerned. My point is that we already have -net socket,fd and any user that passes an fd into that already knows what he wants to do with it. Making it work with raw sockets is just a natural extension to this, which works on all kernels and (with separate namespaces) is reasonably secure. I fully agree that we should not introduce further network backends that would confuse users, but making the existing backends more flexible is something entirely different. Arnd -- 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
