[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27 |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:22:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:
> On 07/27/2010 10:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Kevin Wolf<address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>
>>>> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Liguori<address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - any additional input on probed_raw?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it a fait accompli? I stopped providing input when commit
>>>>> 79368c81 appeared.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No. 79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a
>>>> security hole). But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied
>>>> with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw. I was hoping to get a
>>>> little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether
>>>> probed_raw was more agreeable.
>>>>
>>> Actually I believe qraw is less agreeable. It just too much magic. You
>>> wouldn't expect that your raw images are turned into some other format
>>> that you can't mount or use with any other program any more.
>>>
>> I also dislike probed_raw, for the same reasons.
>>
>> Raw can't be probed safely, by its very nature. For historical reasons,
>> we try anyway. I think we should stop doing that, even though that
>> breaks existing use relying on the misfeature. Announce it now, spit
>> out scary warnings, kill it for good 1-2 releases later.
>>
>> If we're unwilling to do that, then I'd *strongly* prefer doing nothing
>> over silently messing with the raw writes to sector 0 (so does
>> Christoph, and he explained why).
>
> If we add docs/deprecated-features.txt, schedule removal for at least
> 1 year in the future, and put a warning in the code that prints
> whenever raw is probed, I think I could warm up to this.
>
> Since libvirt should be insulating users from this today, I think the
> fall out might not be terrible.
Okay, I'll prepare a patch.
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Chris Wright, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Avi Kivity, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Chris Wright, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Avi Kivity, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Avi Kivity, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Avi Kivity, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Avi Kivity, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27,
Markus Armbruster <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Kevin Wolf, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Markus Armbruster, 2010/07/28
[Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/07/27