On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:06:02PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 06:24:25PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > One question: what is the behavior we expect from guest namespaces? In > > v2, you mentioned prototyping a /dev/vsock ioctl() to define the > > namespace for the virtio-vsock device. This would mean only one > > namespace could use vsock in the guest? Do we want to make sure that our > > design makes it possible to support multiple namespaces in the future if > > the use case arrives? > > Yes, I guess it makes sense that multiple namespaces can communicate with > the host and then use the virtio-vsock device! > > IIRC, the main use case here was also nested VMs. So a netns could be used > to isolate a nested VM in L1 and it may not need to talk to L0, so the > software in the L1 netns can use vsock, but only to talk to L2. > Oh I see. The ioctl(IOCTL_VM_SOCKETS_ASSIGN_G2H_NETNS) makes sense here and seems like the simplest approach. Maybe we don't want multiple namespaces for virtio-vsocka then? The problem I see is that then users might expect non-colliding port spaces, which means there needs to be some kind of port-mapping, which would then require vsock users to pass around their port mappings out-of-band... It sounds like none of our known use cases requires non-colliding ports? > > > > More questions/comments in other parts of this thread. > > Sure, I'm happy to help with this effort with discussions/reviews! > Awesome, thank you! Best, Bobby
