[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] fw_cfg: RFQDN rules, documentation

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] fw_cfg: RFQDN rules, documentation
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 09:55:42 +0300

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [Context restored]
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:29:20PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> The next use case to consider is a user picking a new name for a new
> >> interface between host and guest.  I find the idea that such a user
> >> won't notice warnings farfetched.  But let's assume such users exist.
> >> We're talking about someone who strays out of /opt out of willfulness or
> >> ignorance *and* can't be bothered to read warnings, and because of that
> >> we reject his usage outright to drive home the point.
> >> 
> >> What good is that going to do?  What are the chances this will make such
> >> a user actually read the docs, pick an appropriate RFQDN and stick to
> >> /opt/RFQDN/?  I think they're remote.  Multipy it by the probability of
> >> this case even happening, and the result is even more remote.
> >
> > Enforce a sane policy. It's too easy to misconfigure qemu as it is.
> > We don't need more knobs that can break guests.
> While that's a valid point, it's not an answer to the question I asked.
> My point is that anyone violating the rules despite the warning before
> your patch is highly likely to violate them just as badly afterwards.
> Therefore, the probability of your patch being of any use there is
> 1 - highly likely.

My point is that's not so because not all users see our warnings. They
will notice that they are passing "unsupported" in the path.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]