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

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

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.

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature