On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 01:42:31AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:33:28 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Currently we call repair_sock_init() immediately before
> > tap_sock_unix_init().  However, this means it will be skipped if the
> > vhost-user control fd is passed with --fd instead of being created at a
> > specific path.
> 
> That's intended, because we might not have a path in that case. See
> conf_open_files().

Hm, good point.  We should probably make it conditional on actually
having a path in that case.  If --fd and --repair-path are used
together, that should work, and at the moment it won't.

> I know it's not perfectly consistent, but it's practical at the moment.
> 
> The alternative opens up complicated questions such as: should we have
> a --fd-repair option? What should be the default path if only --fd is
> given? This is really unnecessary right now.

I don't think we can have an --fd-repair, since part of the security
model for passt-repair is that it connects to passt, not the other way
around.  We could, however, require --repair path if you want to use
migration with --fd.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson