Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:15:23PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> Yes indeed its a little crazy :-) As anthony mentioned if libvirt were >>> able to be notified of changes a user makes in the monitor, there's no >>> reason we could not allow end users to access the monitor of a VM >>> libvirt is managing. We just need to make sure libvirt doesn't miss >>> changes like attaching or detaching block devices, etc, because that'll >>> cause crash/data loss later when libvirt migrates or does save/restore, >>> etc because it'll launch QEMU with wrong args >>> >> You still have an inherent race here. >> >> user: plug in disk >> libvirt: start migration, still without disk >> qemu: libvirt, a disk has been plugged in. > > That is true, but we'd still be considering direct monitor access to > be a 'expert' user mode of use. If they wish to shoot themselves in > the foot by triggering a migration at same time they are hotplugging > I'm fine if their whole leg gets blown away. ...while there is also nothing that speaks against blocking any device hot-plugging while migration is ongoing. Independent of if there is some management app involved or the user himself plays with multiple monitors. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list