Re: [PATCH 2/2] Report better error message in remoteGetUNIXSocket

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 13:22:47 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 01:02:40PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > Before this patch users might be confused with the error when no daemon > > nor systemd socket unit is running due to the error message being a bit > > vague when running as root with no URI: > > > > # virsh list > > error: failed to connect to the hypervisor > > error: Operation not supported: Cannot use direct socket mode if no > > URI is set > > > > Instead of merely suggesting to start any daemon, also give a hint as to > > what socket we have tried looking up: > > > > # virsh list > > error: failed to connect to the hypervisor > > error: Operation not supported: Cannot connect to > > '/var/run/libvirt/virtqemud-sock' and no URI is set, is any virt > > daemon or systemd socket unit started? > > As Peter points out, this is a misleading message because it is > arbitrarily reporting the first compiled in driver, which may > be no resemblance to what the user was expecting to run. I think Exactly. E.g. on Fedora and other distros which enable most features you'd get: error: Operation not supported: Cannot connect to '/var/run/libvirt/virtxend-sock' and no URI is set, is any virt daemon or systemd socket unit started? And running xen is not what most users want to do when they install libvirt.

> we should not include the sock path here, but we could include > the sock *directory*, as that would help diagnose when someone > built with the wrong install prefix, eg > > "No active daemon socket found in /var/run/libvirt, and no > URI is set. Is any libvirt daemon or socket unit started ?" This sounds much better. I also don't think we should be putting any command examples here as suggested by Rich as there isn't a good default value we could use because of exactly the same reason.