Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/49] Initial support of multi-process qemu - status update

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 07:57:32PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2019, at 20:47, Elena Ufimtseva <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:41:16AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> Is there a work-in-progress muser patch series you can post to start the
> >> discussion early?  That way we can avoid reviewers like myself asking
> >> you to make changes after you have invested a lot of time.
> >> 
> > 
> > Absolutely, that is our plan. At the moment we do not have the patches
> > ready for the review. We have setup internally a milestone and will be
> > sending that early version as a tarball after we have it completed.
> > Would be also a meeting something that could help us to stay on the same
> > page?
> 
> Please loop us in if you so set up a meeting.

There is a bi-weekly KVM Community Call that we can use for phone
discussions:

  
https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=dG9iMXRqcXAzN3Y4ZXZwNzRoMHE4a3BqcXNAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Or we can schedule a one-off call at any time :).

Questions I've seen when discussing muser with people have been:

1. Can unprivileged containers create muser devices?  If not, this is a
   blocker for use cases that want to avoid root privileges entirely.

2. Does muser need to be in the kernel (e.g. slower to develop/ship,
   security reasons)?  A similar library could be implemented in
   userspace along the lines of the vhost-user protocol.  Although VMMs
   would then need to use a new libmuser-client library instead of
   reusing their VFIO code to access the device.

3. Should this feature be Linux-only?  vhost-user can be implemented on
   non-Linux OSes...

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature