Re: [PATCH] tools/virtiofsd: add support for --socket-group

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 02:33:25PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:49 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > If you like running QEMU as a normal user (very common for TCG runs)
> > > but you have to run virtiofsd as a root user you run into connection
> > > problems. Adding support for an optional --socket-group allows the
> > > users to keep using the command line.
> >
> > If we're going to support this, then I think we need to put it in
> > the vhost-user.rst specification so we standardize across backends.
> >
> >
> 
> Perhaps. Otoh, I wonder if the backend spec should be more limited to
> arguments/introspection that are used by programs.
> 
> In this case, I even consider --socket-path to be unnecessary, as a
> management layer can/should provide a preopened & setup fd directly.
> 
> What do you think?

I think there's value in standardization even if it is an option targetted
at human admins, rather than machine usage. You are right though that
something like libvirt would never use --socket-group, or --socket-path.
Even admins would benefit if all programs followed the same naming for
these.  We could document such options as "SHOULD" rather than "MUST"
IOW, we don't mandate --socket-group, but if you're going to provide a
way to control socket group, this option should be used.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|