From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] eal: provide option to set vhost_user socket
	owner/permissions
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:52:32 +0200
Message-ID: <1821126.OuT4M3UuqJ@xps13>
References: <1461575896-17409-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
 <20160426041637.GE7832@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>,
 Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, dev@dpdk.org, "Xie,
 Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>,
 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796862A1A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:52:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id u206so25287519wme.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 01:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160426041637.GE7832@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-04-25 21:16, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > The API doesn't hold a way to specify a owner/permission set for vhost_user
> > created sockets.
> 
> Yes, it's kind of like a known issue. So, thanks for bringing it, with
> a solution, for dicussion (cc'ed more people).
[...]
> > But I'd be interested if DPDK in general would be interested in:
> > a) an approach like this?
> 
> You were trying to add a vhost specific stuff as EAL command option,
> which is something we might should try to avoid.

Yes, -1

> > b) would prefer a change of the API?
> 
> Adding a new option to the current register API might will not work well,
> either. It gives you no ability to do a dynamic change later. I mean,
> taking OVS as an example, OVS provides you the flexible ability to do all
> kinds of configuration in a dynamic way, say number of rx queues. If we
> do the permissions setup in the register time, there would be no way to
> change it later, right?
> 
> So, I'm thinking that we may could add a new API for that? It then would
> allow applications to change it at anytime.

A vhost API in the library?
And for vhost PMD? What about devargs parameters?

> > c) consider it an issue of consuming projects and let them take care?
> 
> It's not exactly an issue of consuming projects; we created the socket
> file after all.

Yes