[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [RFC] Upstreaming virtio-wayland (or an alternative)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:15:04 -0800 Zach Reizner <zachr@google.com> wrote: > >> <snip> I don't think extending vsock is a > >> good idea because there's enough going on with virtio-wayland with > >> respect to FD passing and emulation that a generic interface will be > >> too opinionated. > > > > Can you be more specific? What would be the limitations of such a > > generic interface that would make it unusable for the virtio-wayland > > use case? > > What I meant by that statement was that virtio-wayland implements > juuuust enough FD semantics to make wayland work. It's true that some > other protocols also work over virtio-wayland, but that was a > combination of filling in the holes for that protocol and coincidence. > I'm afraid that a generic interface would have to contend with a long > tail of FD semantics that don't line up with most other protocols. To > give you a specific example, when virtio-wayland encounters an FD in > the guest->host direction that it doesn't recognize, but that can be > written or read to, it will create a unix pipe on the host side and > send it along the wayland connection. This choice works fine for > wayland, but that's because that was the entire point of the design. A > more generic system would have to realize that interaction more > authentically (e.g. for sending a bi-directional socket), Indeed, but is that really a bad thing? I mean, do we really want any kind of FD to transit between guest and host as soon as they implement ->read/write(). For instance, should we forward device FDs which have ->read/write() implemented but on which guest users might want to call ioctl(). > and I'm not > sure it's going to be possible. > > > > > > I like the combination with virtio-gpu because it > > > already has two related but separate graphics concepts combined into > > > one device (display and rendering), so wayland would feel right at > > > home. > > > > Except that, looking at the virtio-wayland code nothing in there looks > > fundamentally wayland specific, or even display-server specific. Sure, > > FD passing support is focused on what wayland needs (pipes, dmabuf FDs, > > ...), but I see nothing that would prevent making it generic enough to > > pass other kind of resources if we ever need to. > > That was intentional, and you have a good point. The reason I was > suggesting integration with virtio-gpu was because I saw that as the > most viable path towards upstreaming. It seems that creating a > dedicated virtio device is highly contentious. > > > > > I must admit I'm not a huge fan of integrating a protocol-agnostic > > message passing interface (with FD-passing support) to virtio-gpu. > > Sounds like something that could be re-used without virtio-gpu being > > involved to me. As for the resource bridging thing, that's more or less > > what I proposed with the generic interface to translate resource handles > > (what I called VFDs) to local FDs. It would probably be easier with a > > vhost-based solution, but your resource bridge interface in crosvm > > seems to provide the same kind of abstraction. Any reason you want to > > avoid this split? > > If the upstreamed version of this actually becomes agnostic, than > keeping it separate from virtio-gpu would make the most sense, but > that seems to be unsettled. Gerd, Stefan, any comment?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]