Hi, I think Shigeki is mis-understanding Dan's mail. I request Shigeki to repost his thinking. Thanks Atsushi SAKAI "S.Sakamoto" <fj0588di@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The attached patch adds VNC-Port setting when virt-manager creates VM. > > > The user can choose whether a VNC-Port is fixed or automatic setup. > > > > I don't think we want to expose ability to specify a fixed VNC port numbers > > in virt-manager. It will prove unreliable in practice, because even if you > > fix a particular guest on port 5905, any other guest doing dynamic VNC port > > assignment may choose this port before the hardcoded guest starts. It is > > not going to be easy for virt-manager to do validation of this port number > > either, since in the near future virt-manager may well be running remotely > > from the host. Finally, any one using virt-manager for management of guests > > never needs to know the port number, since virt-manager will always query > > it from the XML, so this is a very small niche usecase & I don't think it > > is worthwhile adding an extra step in the new VM wizard just for this > > capability. > > > > Hi > > I think that fixed port is necessary. > Because, it have a problem of security. > > Don't know a number of a port opening out... > then, can't understand the port with attacked possibility. > > When auto-select, > Even if we perform an operative design before guest making, > We don't understand we are using any number, and which number was used. > > It may be a very small niche usecase. > But, I think security is not an at all small problem. > So, I think that selection of a fixed port number is better. > > > Thanks, > Shigeki Sakamoto. > > _______________________________________________ > et-mgmt-tools mailing list > et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
