On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 03:29:24PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 08/24/2018 02:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > That sounds reasonable, so we don't need the _WAIT behaviour in > > virtlockd itself, as everything will wait in the secdriver instead. > > At least for now, until we modularize the startup process with the > > shim. Guess that's just one more todo item to solve for the shim > > so not the end of the world. > > Hold on, we do need _WAIT so that we mutually exclude other virtlockd-s > from other hosts fiddling with seclabels on a shared NFS. However, we > will not deadlock on a single host, that's what I'm saying. Right but later when multiple clients are permitted to connect to the same virtlockd, the API they will use has a designed in deadlock :-( Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
