Hi On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:21 AM Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> writes: > > > * Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@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 > >> > > <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. > > > > Alex: > > Can you add the doc entry that Stefan and Marc-André are asking > > for; it's probably good they go together. > > Sure - is docs/interop/vhost-user.rst the master spec for vhost-user > daemons?
So far, yes. But it might make sense to create a standalone vhost-user-daemons.rst. -- Marc-André Lureau
