On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:34:49AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 6:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:39:37AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:46 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:45 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:45 AM Cindy Lu <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Introduce a new config knob > > > > > > > `CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL`, > > > > > > > to control the availability of the `VHOST_FORK_FROM_OWNER` ioctl. > > > > > > > When CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL is set to n, the ioctl > > > > > > > is disabled, and any attempt to use it will result in failure. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to describe why the default value was chosen to be > > > > > > false. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's more, should we document the implications here? > > > > > > > > > > > > inherit_owner was set to false: this means "legacy" userspace may > > > > > > > > > > I meant "true" actually. > > > > > > > > MIchael, I'd expect inherit_owner to be false. Otherwise legacy > > > > applications need to be modified in order to get the behaviour > > > > recovered which is an impossible taks. > > > > > > > > Any idea on this? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > So, let's say we had a modparam? Enough for this customer? > WDYT?
Just to make sure I understand the proposal. Did you mean a module parameter like "inherit_owner_by_default"? I think it would be fine if we make it false by default. Thanks > > -- > MST >
