> From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 5:35 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > AF_VSOCK is designed to allow multiple transports, so why not. There is a cost > to developing and maintaining a vsock transport though. Yes. The effort could be reduced via simplifying the design as much as possible: e.g. no ring operations - guest just sends a packet each time for the host to read. (this transport isn't targeting for high performance) > > I think Amazon Nitro enclaves use virtio-vsock and I've CCed Andra in case she > has thoughts on the pros/cons and how to minimize the trusted computing > base. Thanks for adding more related person to the discussion loop. > > If simplicity is the top priority then VIRTIO's MMIO transport without indirect > descriptors and using the packed virtqueue layout reduces the size of the > implementation: > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-1 > 440002 I listed some considerations for virtio-mmio in the response to Michael. Please have a check if any different thoughts. Thanks, Wei _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
