[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: USBIP protocol
    On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:43:54AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:30:17AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:24AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > > >
    > > > I'm in the middle of implementing a userspace client for usbip and I
    > > > strongly feel that the protocol needs to be changed before it is merged.
    > > >
    > > > - I'm unconvinced that TCP is the correct protocol to be running this over.
    > > > I understand the reluctance to use UDP, but the protocol is fundamentally
    > > > packet-based. If TCP is used, the delimitation of packets within the
    > > > stream needs to be much more robust. I've managed to wedge the VHCI driver
    > > > a number of times in ways that just wouldn't be possible if we were using
    > > > a packet protocol instead of a stream protocol.
    > >
    > > USB is fundamentally packet-based, so it kind of fits very well.
    > Erm, did you not read what I wrote? USB is packet based. TCP isn't.
    > We shouldn't be using TCP here.

    Sorry, early morning, no coffee yet...

    I think in the end, we should still use TCP otherwise you just end up
    reinventing it with UDP :)

    > > > - Endianness. This is a mess. The usbip protocol is big-endian, but the
    > > > encapsulated usb protocol is little-endian. This doesn't matter to the
    > > > people who are just tunnelling usb from one computer to another, but for
    > > > someone implementing a usbip client, it's very confusing.
    > >
    > > Then just document it, no big deal.
    > > Yeah, the current code isn't the cleanest here (sparse throws up some
    > > warnings), but it's not that much work to fix it up, it's on my todo
    > > list.
    > I'm not talking about the code. I'm talking about the protocol. It's a
    > mess to have two different endiannesses within the same packet.

    Ok, switch it all to be little endian, not a bit deal.

    > > > - There are actually two completely different protocols in use. First,
    > > > the usbipd daemon listens on port 3240, and handles device discovery.
    > > > When usbip successfully attaches to usbipd, both sides of the connection
    > > > pass the socket fd into the kernel and the protocol changes.
    > > > - The protocol sends a 48-byte packet header for every command (and every
    > > > response). It's cunningly hidden as a union.
    > >
    > > Is that a real problem?
    > Yes, it really is. It complicates the protocol, complicates the
    > implementation, introduces unnecessary state, and makes it impossible to
    > renegotiate on the same connection.

    Fair enough, patches welcome :)

    > > Windows has had this for years, no need for a RFC there, and if we just
    > > document this well, no need for one here either.
    > Yes, and as a result we can't interoperate with Windows.

    That is because (see below)

    > By the way, is this actually built into Windows or just available as
    > several mutually incompatible and pay-for products? I did some
    > searching a few months ago and didn't come up with anything official
    > from Microsoft.

    There is nothing official, there are various incompatible and pay-for
    products in this area.

    > Even if we don't go through the RFC process, just writing down the
    > on-wire protocol should be mandatory for taking this kind of thing into
    > the kernel.

    Why, isn't the actual implementation better than a document? :)


    greg k-h

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-29 16:57    [W:0.043 / U:7.748 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site