On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:03:16 -0400 Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 3:36 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > > > > 2) then switch focus to porting a smaller C userspace implementation of > > > QUIC to Linux (probably not msquic since it is larger and doesn't > > > follow kernel style) > > > to kernel in fs/cifs (since currently SMB3.1.1 is the only protocol > > > that uses QUIC, > > > and the Windows server target is quite stable and can be used to test against)> 3) use the userspace upcall example from step 1 for > > > comparison/testing/debugging etc. > > > since we know the userspace version is stable > > > > With having the fuse-like socket before it should be trivial to switch > > between the implementations. > > So a good starting point would be to have such a "fuse-like socket" > component? What about having a simple example for that at first > without having quic involved. The kernel calls some POSIX-like socket > interface which triggers a communication to a user space application. > This user space application will then map everything to a user space > generated socket. This would be a map from socket struct > "proto/proto_ops" to user space and vice versa. The kernel application > probably can use the kernel_FOO() (e.g. kernel_recvmsg()) socket api > directly then. Exactly like "fuse" as you mentioned just for sockets. > > I think two veth interfaces can help to test something like that, > either with a "fuse-like socket" on the other end or an user space > application. Just doing a ping-pong example. > > Afterwards we can look at how to replace the user generated socket > application with any $LIBQUIC e.g. msquic implementation as second > step. > > - Alex > Socket state management is complex and timers etc in userspace are hard.
