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 :|