From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> To: linux-um@lists.infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: [Qemu-devel] custom virt-io support (in user-mode-linux) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 15:02:38 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <0952696452f5ff4e38d2417029243fc60efa33d6.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw) Hi, While my main interest is mostly in UML right now [1] I've CC'ed the qemu and virtualization lists because something similar might actually apply to other types of virtualization. I'm thinking about adding virt-io support to UML, but the tricky part is that while I want to use the virt-io basics (because it's a nice interface from the 'inside'), I don't actually want the stock drivers that are part of the kernel now (like virtio-net etc.) but rather something that integrates with wifi (probably building on hwsim). The 'inside' interfaces aren't really a problem - just have a specific device ID for this, and then write a normal virtio kernel driver for it. The 'outside' interfaces are where my thinking breaks down right now. Looking at lkl, the outside is just all implemented in lkl as code that gets linked to the library, so in UML terms it'd just be extra 'outside' code like the timer handling or other netdev stuff we have today. Looking at qemu, it's of course also implemented there, and then interfaces with the real network, console abstraction, etc. However, like I said above, I really need something very custom and not likely to make it upstream to any project (because what point is that if you cannot connect to the rest of the environment I'm building), so I'm thinking that perhaps it should be possible to write an abstract 'outside' that lets you interact with it really from out-of-process? Perhaps through some kind of shared memory segment? I think that gets tricky with virt-io doing DMA (I think it does?) though, so that part would have to be implemented directly and not out-of-process? But really that's why I'm asking - is there a better way than to just link the device-side virt-io code into the same binary (be it lkl lib, uml binary, qemu binary)? Thanks, johannes [1] Actually, I've considered using qemu, but it doesn't have virtualized time and doesn't seem to support TSC virtualization. I guess I could remove TSC from the guest CPU and add a virtualized HPET, but I've yet to convince myself this works - on UML I made virtual time as a prototype already: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1095814/ (though my real goal isn't to just skip time forward when the host goes idle, it's to sync with other simulated components)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> To: linux-um@lists.infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: custom virt-io support (in user-mode-linux) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 15:02:38 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <0952696452f5ff4e38d2417029243fc60efa33d6.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw) Hi, While my main interest is mostly in UML right now [1] I've CC'ed the qemu and virtualization lists because something similar might actually apply to other types of virtualization. I'm thinking about adding virt-io support to UML, but the tricky part is that while I want to use the virt-io basics (because it's a nice interface from the 'inside'), I don't actually want the stock drivers that are part of the kernel now (like virtio-net etc.) but rather something that integrates with wifi (probably building on hwsim). The 'inside' interfaces aren't really a problem - just have a specific device ID for this, and then write a normal virtio kernel driver for it. The 'outside' interfaces are where my thinking breaks down right now. Looking at lkl, the outside is just all implemented in lkl as code that gets linked to the library, so in UML terms it'd just be extra 'outside' code like the timer handling or other netdev stuff we have today. Looking at qemu, it's of course also implemented there, and then interfaces with the real network, console abstraction, etc. However, like I said above, I really need something very custom and not likely to make it upstream to any project (because what point is that if you cannot connect to the rest of the environment I'm building), so I'm thinking that perhaps it should be possible to write an abstract 'outside' that lets you interact with it really from out-of-process? Perhaps through some kind of shared memory segment? I think that gets tricky with virt-io doing DMA (I think it does?) though, so that part would have to be implemented directly and not out-of-process? But really that's why I'm asking - is there a better way than to just link the device-side virt-io code into the same binary (be it lkl lib, uml binary, qemu binary)? Thanks, johannes [1] Actually, I've considered using qemu, but it doesn't have virtualized time and doesn't seem to support TSC virtualization. I guess I could remove TSC from the guest CPU and add a virtualized HPET, but I've yet to convince myself this works - on UML I made virtual time as a prototype already: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1095814/ (though my real goal isn't to just skip time forward when the host goes idle, it's to sync with other simulated components) _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
next reply other threads:[~2019-05-22 13:33 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-22 13:02 Johannes Berg [this message] 2019-05-22 13:02 ` custom virt-io support (in user-mode-linux) Johannes Berg 2019-05-22 13:28 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-05-22 13:28 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anton Ivanov 2019-05-22 13:28 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-05-22 13:46 ` [Qemu-devel] " Johannes Berg 2019-05-22 13:46 ` Johannes Berg 2019-05-22 13:46 ` Johannes Berg 2019-05-22 14:00 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anton Ivanov 2019-05-22 14:00 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-05-22 14:00 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-05-23 11:59 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Hajnoczi 2019-05-23 11:59 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2019-05-23 11:59 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2019-05-23 14:25 ` Johannes Berg 2019-05-23 14:25 ` Johannes Berg 2019-05-23 14:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2019-05-23 14:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2019-05-24 9:54 ` Johannes Berg 2019-05-24 9:54 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=0952696452f5ff4e38d2417029243fc60efa33d6.camel@sipsolutions.net \ --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \ --cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \ --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.