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 <berra...@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. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
