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(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: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.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().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