Re: USBIP protocol

[Matthew Wilcox]

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.

> >  - 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.

> >  - 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.

> > I think the protocol would be immeasurably improved by going through the
> > IETF RFC process and getting feedback from networking experts.  Failing
> > that, I have some suggestions about how to improve it.  I was hoping to
> > get my client finished before I started mucking with the protocol though.
> 
> Why mess with the RFC process, is that really necessary for something
> like this?

It helps clarify the odd corners of any protocol.  I don't have the
impression that it's a terribly heavy-weight process -- though we can
ask the netlink guys how it went for them.

> 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.

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.

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.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/