Re: [PATCH v8 10/19] pesto, conf: Have pesto connect to passt and check versions

[Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>]

On 5/6/26 07:38, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 01:47:10AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>> From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>>
>> Start implementing pesto in earnest.  Create a control/configuration
>> socket in passt.  Have pesto connect to it and retrieve a server greeting
>> Perform some basic version checking.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>> [sbrivio: Avoid potential recursive calling between conf_accept() and
>>   conf_close(), reported by clang-tidy]
> 
> Huh.  For some reason that warning didn't trip for me.  Although it's
> technically true they can mutually recurse, I believe they're both
> tail calls, so it shouldn't eat the stack.
> 
>> [sbrivio: In conf(), check we're not exceeding sizeof(c->control_path)
>>   instead of sizeof(c->socket_path), and, in pesto's main(), print
>>   argv[optind] instead of argv[1] to indicate an invalid socket path,
>>   both reported by Jon Maloy]
>> [sbrivio: In pesto's main(), drop unnecessary newline from error
>>   message, reported by Laurent]
>> [sbrivio: Don't use SOCK_NONBLOCK on accept4(), as that only applies
>>   to the *new* file descriptor, which we don't want -- set O_NONBLOCK
>>   on the listening file descriptor using fcntl()]
> 
> Making the new (accepted) socket non-blocking was the intended
> behaviour here.  We also want non-blocking for the listening socket,
> but that was already done in feab892c7 ("tap, repair: Use
> SOCK_NONBLOCK and SOCK_CLOEXEC on Unix sockets").

This patch has been dropped since v6 of the series.

Thanks,
Laurent