Re: [PATCH V2 2/5] implement remote protocol for domainSendSysrq

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

 




>>> On 12/12/2014 at 09:38 PM, in message <20141212133825.GJ32050@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:24:57PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: 
> > On 12/12/14 12:49, John Ferlan wrote: 
> > >  
> > >  
> > > On 12/12/2014 04:04 AM, Chunyan Liu wrote: 
> > >> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Liu <cyliu@xxxxxxxx> 
> > >> --- 
> > >>  src/remote/remote_driver.c   |  2 +- 
> > >>  src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 13 ++++++++++++- 
> > >>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 
> > >> 
> >  
> > >>  struct remote_domain_send_process_signal_args { 
> > >>      remote_nonnull_domain dom; 
> > >>      hyper pid_value; 
> > >> @@ -5550,5 +5555,11 @@ enum remote_procedure { 
> > >>       * @generate: none 
> > >>       * @acl: domain:fs_freeze 
> > >>       */ 
> > >> -    REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_GET_FSINFO = 349 
> > >> +    REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_GET_FSINFO = 349, 
> > >> + 
> > >> +    /** 
> > >> +     * @generate: both 
> > >> +     * @acl: domain:send_input 
> > >> +     */ 
> > >  
> > > Just send_input?  The result of the send is essentially 'init_control' 
> > > right? Like a shutdown. Perhaps even like destroy (eg, 'stop'). Or 
> > > 'shutdown'... I'm not sure of all the options here, but this seems much 
> > > more invasive than just sending input because the result of the sent key 
> > > is a bit more "final". 
> >  
> > Since you are able to do the same thing with the virDomainSendKey API 
> > which has the same ACL class: 
> >  
> > virsh send-key dom KEY_LEFTALT KEY_SYSRQ KEY_O 
> >  
> > I don't think it should require any other permission since it's just a 
> > keystroke basically. 
>  
> Agreed, 'send_input' basically gives away the keys to the kingdom, 
> so there's nothing to gain by having a separate permission for 
> this new API 
>  
> As a general rule we should always seek to reuse existing permissions 
> because we don't want to end up having one permission for each separate 
> API 

Got it. Thanks.

>  
> Regards, 
> Daniel 
> --  
> |: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/  
> :| 
> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org  
> :| 
> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/  
> :| 
> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc  
> :| 
>  
>  



--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]