Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] virtio-msg transport layer
Alex Bennée <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:21:46 +0000
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-comment |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Demi Marie Obenour <[email protected]> writes: > On 1/26/26 11:32, Bill Mills wrote: >> This series adds the virtio-msg transport layer. >> >> The individuals and organizations involved in this effort have had difficulty in >> using the existing virtio-transports in various situations and desire to add one >> more transport that performs its transport layer operations by sending and >> receiving messages. >> >> Implementations of virtio-msg will normally be done in multiple layers: >> * common / device level >> * bus level >> >> The common / device level defines the messages exchanged between the driver >> and a device. This common part should lead to a common driver holding most >> of the virtio specifics and can be shared by all virtio-msg bus implementations. >> The kernel implementation in [3] shows this separation. As with other transport >> layers, virtio-msg should not require modifications to existing virtio device >> implementations (virtio-net, virtio-blk etc). The common / device level is the >> main focus of this version of the patch series. >> >> The virtio-msg bus level implements the normal things a bus defines >> (enumeration, dma operations, etc) but also implements the message send and >> receive operations. A number of bus implementations are envisioned, >> some of which will be reusable and general purpose. Other bus implementations >> might be unique to a given situation, for example only used by a PCIe card >> and its driver. >> >> The standard bus messages are an effort to avoid different bus implementations >> doing the same thing in different ways for no good reason. However the >> different environments will require different things. Instead of trying to >> anticipate all needs and provide something very abstract, we think >> implementation specific messages will be needed at the bus level. Over time, >> if we see similar messages across multiple bus implementations, we will move to >> standardize a bus level message for that. >> >> We are working on a few reusable bus implementations: >> >> * virtio-msg-ffa based on Arm FF-A interface for use between: >> * normal world and secure world >> * host and VM or VM to VM >> * Can be used w/ or with out a hypervisor >> * Any Hypervisor that implements FF-A can be used >> * We have this working with pKVM and Xen >> * We have this working with Trusty and OP-TEE >> >> * virtio-msg-amp for use between heterogenous systems >> * The main processors and its co-processors on an AMP SOC >> * Two or more systems connected via PCIe >> * Minimal requirements: bi-directional interrupts and >> at least one shared memory area >> * hvac-demo has 2 demos of this >> * This is working on two hardware platforms >> >> * virtio-msg-loopback for userspace implemented devices >> * Allows user space to provide devices to its own kernel >> * This is similar to fuse, cuse or loopback block devices but for virtio >> * hvac-demo has a demo >> >> We also anticipate a few more: >> >> * virtio-msg-xen specific to Xen >> * Usable on any Xen system (including x86 where FF-A does not exist) >> * Using Xen events and page grants >> >> * virtio-msg over admin virtqueues >> * This allows any virtio-pci device that supports admin virtqueues to also >> support a virtio-msg bus that supports sub devices >> * [We are looking for collaborators for this work] > > Which transport, if any, would be suitable for communication > between a KVM VM and a userspace process I think vhost-user already covers this case well enough. However there is no reason the VMM could terminate a virtio-msg bus and pass the messages across vhost-user to a device backend. > or between two KVM VMs? > Would this require a new bus? If so, should it be implemented in > terms of vhost-user? If you want the backend for a VirtIO device in another KVM VM that I suspect you want to avoid a round-trip through the user-space of the VMM. If FF-A isn't an option the hypervisor could support some sort of minimal hypercall transport to pass messages between the two. -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro