From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
QEMU <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/virtiofsd: add support for --socket-group
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:47:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200317184704.GG3369@work-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200317095414.GC492272@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefanha@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:33:31AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree. It's still useful to have a convention that most vhost-user
> backend programs follow.
Alex:
Can you add the doc entry that Stefan and Marc-André are asking
for; it's probably good they go together.
Dave
> Stefan
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-17 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-12 10:41 [PATCH] tools/virtiofsd: add support for --socket-group Alex Bennée
2020-03-12 10:49 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-03-14 13:33 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-03-16 10:33 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-03-17 9:54 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-03-17 18:47 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert [this message]
2020-03-17 23:21 ` Alex Bennée
2020-03-17 23:54 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-03-14 13:25 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200317184704.GG3369@work-vm \
--to=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@gmail.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).