From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNZjK-0002QT-9S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:43:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNZjI-0004cg-4F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:43:58 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNZjH-0004bQ-Rp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:43:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382F63082A24 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:43:52 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann Message-ID: <20181116084352.t7in4ztnnhkgd37b@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: <49306290-125b-8d63-ae27-495c0c17e113@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49306290-125b-8d63-ae27-495c0c17e113@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Introduce 'rendernode' option for egl-headless display type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Erik Skultety , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:47:44AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/15/18 9:15 AM, Erik Skultety wrote: > > Since QEMU always picks the default DRI device, libvirt doesn't know which one > > to put into the mount namespace and relabel it accordingly, hence hitting > > permission issues, unless admin tweaks the default permissions of the DRI > > devices. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648236 > > This is borderline between fixing a bug that gets in the way of libvirt (and > thus useful for 3.1) and a feature (thus for 4.0, since we won't have a 3.2 > release). I'll let Gerd decide. It's simple enough and we are early in the -rc cycle still, I think it would be okay for 3.1. cheers, Gerd