On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:29:31AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:09:58PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
Hi Bobby,
Sorry for the delay, but I saw these patches today.
Please, can you keep me in CC?
Hey Stefano, sorry about that. I'm not sure how I lost your CC on this
one. I'll make sure you are there moving forward.
No problem :-)
I want to mention that I'm taking a look at
https://gitlab.com/vsock/vsock/-/issues/1 in parallel with my dgram work
here. After sending out this series we noticed potential overlap between
the two issues. The additional dgram queues may become redundant if a
fairness mechanism that solves issue #1 above also applies to
connection-less protocols (similar to how the TC subsystem works). I've
just begun sorting out potential solutions so no hard results yet. Just
putting on your radar that the proposal here in v5 may be impacted if my
investigation into issue #1 yields something adequate.
Oh, this would be great!
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 10:15:46PM +0000, beshleman.devbox@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
... snip ...
>
> virtio-vsock.tex | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virtio-vsock.tex b/virtio-vsock.tex
> index d79984d..1a66a1b 100644
> --- a/virtio-vsock.tex
> +++ b/virtio-vsock.tex
> @@ -9,11 +9,26 @@ \subsection{Device ID}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Device ID}
>
> \subsection{Virtqueues}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Virtqueues}
> \begin{description}
> -\item[0] rx
> -\item[1] tx
> +\item[0] stream rx
> +\item[1] stream tx
> +\item[2] datagram rx
> +\item[3] datagram tx
> +\item[4] event
> +\end{description}
> +The virtio socket device uses 5 queues if feature bit VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_DRGAM is set. Otherwise, it
> +only uses 3 queues, as the following.
We are also adding a new flag (VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_NO_IMPLIED_STREAM) to
provide the possibility to support for example only dgrams.
So I think we should consider the case where we have only DGRAM queues
(and it will be similar to the stream only case so 3 queues).
Maybe we could describe this part better and say that if we have both
STREAM (or SEQPACKET) and DGRAM set we have 5 queues, otherwise
only 3 queues.
Roger that.
> \subsubsection{Buffer Space Management}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Buffer Space Management}
> \field{buf_alloc} and \field{fwd_cnt} are used for buffer space management of
> stream sockets. The guest and the device publish how much buffer space is
> @@ -170,7 +193,7 @@ \subsubsection{Buffer Space Management}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device /
> u32 peer_free = peer_buf_alloc - (tx_cnt - peer_fwd_cnt);
> \end{lstlisting}
>
> -If there is insufficient buffer space, the sender waits until virtqueue buffers
> +For stream sockets, if there is insufficient buffer space, the sender waits until virtqueue buffers
stream and seqpacket
> are returned and checks \field{buf_alloc} and \field{fwd_cnt} again. Sending
> the VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packet queries how much buffer space is
> available. The reply to this query is a VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE packet.
> @@ -178,22 +201,32 @@ \subsubsection{Buffer Space Management}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device /
> previously receiving a VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packet. This allows
> communicating updates any time a change in buffer space occurs.
>
> +Unlike stream sockets, dgram sockets do not use VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE
> +or VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packets. The dgram buffer management is split
> +into two parts: senders and receivers. For senders, the packet is dropped if the
> +virtqueue is full. For receivers, the packet is dropped if there is no space
> +in the receive buffer.
> +
> \drivernormative{\paragraph}{Device Operation: Buffer Space Management}{Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Buffer Space Management}
> -VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets MUST only be transmitted when the peer has
> -sufficient free buffer space for the payload.
> +For stream sockets, VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets MUST only be transmitted when the peer has
stream and seqpacket
> +sufficient free buffer space for the payload. For dgram sockets, VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets
> +MAY be transmitted when the peer rx buffer is full. Then the packet will be dropped by the peer,
> +and driver will not get any notification.
>
> All packets associated with a stream flow MUST contain valid information in
> \field{buf_alloc} and \field{fwd_cnt} fields.
>
> \devicenormative{\paragraph}{Device Operation: Buffer Space Management}{Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Buffer Space Management}
> -VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets MUST only be transmitted when the peer has
> -sufficient free buffer space for the payload.
> +For stream sockets, VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets MUST only be transmitted when the peer has
stream and seqpacket
Roger that to all three instances above.
> +sufficient free buffer space for the payload. For dgram sockets, VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW data packets
> +MAY be transmitted when the peer rx buffer is full. Then the packet will be dropped by the peer,
> +and the device will not get any notification.
>
> All packets associated with a stream flow MUST contain valid information in
> \field{buf_alloc} and \field{fwd_cnt} fields.
>
> \subsubsection{Receive and Transmit}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Receive and Transmit}
> -The driver queues outgoing packets on the tx virtqueue and incoming packet
> +The driver queues outgoing packets on the tx virtqueue and
> allocates incoming packet
Is this change related?
I think we can remove this change.
> receive buffers on the rx virtqueue. Packets are of the following form:
>
> \begin{lstlisting}
> @@ -206,6 +239,8 @@ \subsubsection{Receive and Transmit}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / De
> Virtqueue buffers for outgoing packets are read-only. Virtqueue buffers for
> incoming packets are write-only.
>
> +When transmitting packets to the device, \field{num_buffers} is not used.
> +
Leftover? Perhaps it should go in patch 2.
Ah yes, I thought I had the two well-separated but this snuck out from
under me.
> \drivernormative{\paragraph}{Device Operation: Receive and Transmit}{Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Receive and Transmit}
>
> The \field{guest_cid} configuration field MUST be used as the source CID when
> @@ -274,6 +309,14 @@ \subsubsection{Seqpacket Sockets}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Devic
> #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR (1 << 1)
> \end{lstlisting}
>
> +\subsubsection{Datagram Sockets}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Device Operation / Datagram Sockets}
> +
> +Datagram (dgram) sockets are connectionless and unreliable. The sender just sends
> +a message to the peer and hopes it will be delivered. A VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RST reply is sent if
> +a receiving socket does not exist on the destination.
> +If the transmission or receiving buffers are full, the packets
> +are dropped.
> +
I'm not sure we should respond with RST if there's no socket bind on
the port.
What happens with UDP if we do a sendto to a closed port?
Thanks,
Stefano
With UDP this results in an ICMP Destination Unreachable message, which
is explicitly not UDP but is experienced by the application nonetheless.
There was some discussion from v1, and the design choice essentially
came down to "how much do we want to be emulating of ICMP inside
vsock?"
Okay, I see, but how this is propagate to the userspace?
IIUC for UDP the user should open a RAW socket with IPPROTO_ICMP and
wait for an error message.
Have you taken a look at a possible implementation with AF_VSOCK yet?
In any case if it can be useful we could include it in the spec and then
implement it later in Linux.
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
