On 2024/12/14 01:16, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 09:12:39AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 17:24:42 +0800 >> Yang Ming wrote: >> >>> 1. /var/tmp is hard code which is not a good style >>> 2. /var/tmp may be not allowed to be written via container's >>> read only mode. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Ming >> Since this is a unix domain socket, why not use abstract socket >> that doesn't have to be associated with filesystem? > In general, I think we should avoid abstract sockets in DPDK. Primary > reason is that they are linux-specific. Last time I checked other unixes, > like BSD, don't support them. A secondary concern is that having a > filesystem path allows permission checks, so for e.g. telemetry sockets, > only users with appropriate permissions can connect. With an abstract socket > we'd have to open up the area of user authentication. > > /Bruce > Hi Stephen & Bruce, I'm not sure whether abstract socket is a good idea. Maybe it can be improved further or step by step. But we don't need to discuss it for this commit. We do this improvement because "/var/tmp" and "/var/log" can't be write in Readonly mode of container except that we add /var/ specfic for DPDK application in container's setting. But nearly all DPDK modules have already used common runtime path returned from `rte_eal_get_runtime_dir()`. Why not we apply this common path for Mellanox NIC?