From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [RFC] librte_vhost: Add unix domain socket fd registration Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:21:28 +0800 Message-ID: <20160621072128.GK23111@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1466177556-14891-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Huawei Xie , Christian Ehrhardt To: Aaron Conole Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F25295CC for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:20:26 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1466177556-14891-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: > Prior to this commit, the only way to add a vhost-user socket to the > system is by relying on librte_vhost to open the unix domain socket and > add it to the unix socket list. This is problematic for applications > which would like to set the permissions, So, you want to address the issue raised by following patch? http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12222/ I would still like to stick to my proposal, that is to introduce a new API to do the permission change at anytime, if we end up with wanting to introduce a new API. > or applications which are not > directly allowed to open sockets due to policy restrictions. Could you name a specific example? BTW, JFYI, since 16.07, DPDK supports client mode. It's QEMU (acting as the server) will create the socket file. I guess that would diminish (or even avoid?) the permission pain that DPDK acting as server brings. I doubt the API to do the permission change is really needed then. --yliu