Hi, Martin Kletzander wrote (13 Aug 2015 07:55:54 GMT) : > Good catch, this makes sense, but to be strictly precise about this, I > would say this makes the directory accessible for R/W, but readonly > would be enough, wouldn't it? Yes. > There could be a small code adjustment, > I'd even dare calling it a clean-up, that would make it possible for > this direcotry to be put in the 'restricted_rw'. It would change the > semantic a bit, but since there is no path that could start with > string from both 'restricted' and 'restricted_rw' currently, I don't > see a problem there. Great idea, the proposed logic looks fine to me. I'm not skilled enough at C to review the actual patch, though. Cheers, -- intrigeri -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list