From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F25295CC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:20:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
 by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2016 00:20:25 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,502,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="125801287"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
 by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2016 00:20:24 -0700
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:21:28 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>,
 Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <20160621072128.GK23111@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1466177556-14891-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1466177556-14891-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] librte_vhost: Add unix domain socket fd
	registration
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:20:26 -0000

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Prior to this commit, the only way to add a vhost-user socket to the
> system is by relying on librte_vhost to open the unix domain socket and
> add it to the unix socket list.  This is problematic for applications
> which would like to set the permissions,

So, you want to address the issue raised by following patch?

    http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12222/

I would still like to stick to my proposal, that is to introduce a
new API to do the permission change at anytime, if we end up with
wanting to introduce a new API.

> or applications which are not
> directly allowed to open sockets due to policy restrictions.

Could you name a specific example?

BTW, JFYI, since 16.07, DPDK supports client mode. It's QEMU (acting
as the server) will create the socket file. I guess that would diminish
(or even avoid?) the permission pain that DPDK acting as server brings.
I doubt the API to do the permission change is really needed then.

	--yliu