Re: [PATCH] tools/virtiofsd: add support for --socket-group

[Marc-André Lureau]

Hi

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:21 AM Alex Bennée <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > * Stefan Hajnoczi (address@hidden) 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 <address@hidden> 
> >> > > 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