From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58701C4332F for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229763AbiLOAg2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:36:28 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49214 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229488AbiLOAg1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:36:27 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4121EA4 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:35:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1671064540; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ApzFcJJbD4r/IvshGoU+D+Il451lx5rrWMi/5Db3CRM=; b=LV9SP9pzV1VRIWn2AeZAl8Lh2Ivd63G1G1jxMB3eRzw54z9CNEUCV59fLBMWD7YWcwnqDi P3pnpzny9kuk8cNzpi0XvV7KV1w6kZ+I5KZO/eXsVU1yNeq3syNyM3BP/aD4XkxCCi07DA abXiN+wwH5ZzLDtnfJm1Relf8naKjMA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-447-PA4VnT3AOoGoX7JtyBAimw-1; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 19:35:37 -0500 X-MC-Unique: PA4VnT3AOoGoX7JtyBAimw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF58811E6E; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-8-16.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D92282166B26; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:35:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:35:28 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ZiyangZhang Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] ublk_drv: add mechanism for supporting unprivileged ublk device Message-ID: References: <20221207123305.937678-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:54:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/11/22 8:59 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 08:32:59PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Stefan Hajnoczi suggested un-privileged ublk device[1] for container > >> use case. > >> > >> So far only administrator can create/control ublk device which is too > >> strict and increase system administrator burden, and this patchset > >> implements un-privileged ublk device: > >> > >> - any user can create ublk device, which can only be controlled & > >> accessed by the owner of the device or administrator > >> > >> For using such mechanism, system administrator needs to deploy two > >> simple udev rules[2] after running 'make install' in ublksrv. > >> > >> Userspace(ublksrv): > >> > >> https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/tree/unprivileged-ublk > >> > >> 'ublk add -t $TYPE --un_privileged' is for creating one un-privileged > >> ublk device if the user is un-privileged. > >> > >> > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/YoOr6jBfgVm8GvWg@stefanha-x1.localdomain/ > >> [2] https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/blob/unprivileged-ublk/README.rst#un-privileged-mode > >> > >> V3: > >> - don't warn on invalid user input for setting devt parameter, as > >> suggested by Ziyang, patch 4/6 > >> - fix one memory corruption issue, patch 6/6 > > > > Hello Guys, > > > > Ping... > > I think timing was just a tad late on this. OK if we defer for 6.3, or are > there strong arguments for 6.2? I am OK with deferring for 6.3. Thanks, Ming