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 <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.
I agree. It's still useful to have a convention that most vhost-user backend programs follow. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
