On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:35:06AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:11:33PM +0000, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > Allows to specify abstract Unix sockets addresses. > > > > These Unix sockets are supported on Linux and allows to not > > > > have file system names. > > > > > > What would be the use-case? Just cleaner not to have a dummy path in the > > > FS? Or does it bring more? I'd say why not, though a spice-gtk patch > > > will be needed too. > > > > > > > They have pro and cons. As said they don't have a FS name so for instance > > programs running on some chroot can access the sockets too. For instance > > recent Xorg bind to @/tmp/.X11-unix/X<num> also. > > Also you don't need to unlink the FS entry at the end. This could avoid > > to do the cleanup from libvirt. > > On the cons not having a FS prevent easily to change permissions on the > > socket. > > > > On the paranoia level (happily you could not throw rotten tomatoes remotely): > A pro is that is easy to implement. > A cons is that you cannot have a FS name starting with "@". But probably > you want a full name here so would start with "/" in any case. Yeah, I don't think it's going to be an issue.. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel