On Tue, 10 May 2022 09:26:39 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 07:36:12PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > "-netdev socket" only supports inet sockets. > > > > It's not a complex task to add support for unix sockets, but > > the socket netdev parameters are not defined to manage well unix > > socket parameters. > > > > As discussed in: > > > > "socket.c added support for unix domain socket datagram transport" > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1c0e1bc5-904f-46b0-8044-68e43e67b...@gmail.com/ > > > > This series adds support of unix socket type using SocketAddress QAPI > > structure. > > > > A new netdev backend "socket-ng" is added, that is barely a copy of "socket" > > backend but it uses the SocketAddress QAPI to provide socket parameters. > > And then it also implement unix sockets (TCP and UDP). > > So pulling in the QAPI from patch 2 > > { 'enum': 'NetdevSocketNGMode', > 'data': [ 'dgram', 'server', 'client' ] } > > { 'struct': 'NetdevSocketNGOptions', > 'data': { > 'mode': 'NetdevSocketNGMode', > '*addr': 'SocketAddress', > '*remote': 'SocketAddress', > '*local': 'SocketAddress' } } > > > Some examples of CLI syntax: > > > > for TCP: > > > > -netdev > > socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=server,addr.type=inet,addr.host=localhost,addr.port=1234 > > -netdev > > socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=client,addr.type=inet,addr.host=localhost,addr.port=1234 > > > > -netdev socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=dgram,\ > > local.type=inet,local.host=localhost,local.port=1234,\ > > remote.type=inet,remote.host=localhost,remote.port=1235 > > > > for UNIX: > > > > -netdev > > socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=server,addr.type=unix,addr.path=/tmp/qemu0 > > -netdev > > socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=client,addr.type=unix,addr.path=/tmp/qemu0 > > > > -netdev socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=dgram,\ > > local.type=unix,local.path=/tmp/qemu0,\ > > remote.type=unix,remote.path=/tmp/qemu1 > > > > for FD: > > > > -netdev socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=server,addr.type=fd,addr.str=4 > > -netdev socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=client,addr.type=fd,addr.str=5 > > > > -netdev socket-ng,id=socket0,mode=dgram,local.type=fd,addr.str=4 > > ^^^ local.str=4 > > I notice that in all these examples, mode=client/server always use > the 'addr' field, and mode=dgram always uses the 'local'/'remote' > fields. IOW, there is almost no commonality between the dgram scenario > and the stream scenario, which feels sub-optimal. > > Two alternatives come to mind > > - mode=client could use 'remote' and mode=server could use 'local', > removing the 'addr' field entirely To me, "mode is client, address is x" sounds more intuitive than "mode is client, remote is x". I mean, of course it's the remote address -- that's a bit redundant. > - Have completely separate backends, ie '-netdev stream' for > client/server TCP/UNIX sockets, and '-netdev dgram' for UDP > sockets, removing 'mode' field. ...this won't work, though, because UNIX domain sockets can be stream-oriented or datagram-oriented. -- Stefano
