Christian Ehrhardt: > Great point intrigeri! > #1 > At least as far as my history analysis went this was triggered by ceph > having the support for lttng enabled. > Not by actually (trying to) enable the LTT-ng tracking. > While being disabled in ceph package since then it could show up in a > similar manner from almost any other source. > #2 > OTOH I never have seen any complains on LTT-ng not working in the virt > stack for the years carrying this delta. > So either it is not an issue to those using LTT-ng or no one > (statistically) uses it on virt-hosts in a case that would require it > to get these access. > Especially due to #1 IMHO I'd tend to add the denies as the flooding > hits people not explicitly enabling/caring about LTT-ng. > It would be great if instead of allow/deny we had the option to "deny > but report once" - like a ratelimit, but we don't. OK, why not then. My only remaining concern is that someone who wants to enable LTT-ng for their VMs (and somehow manages to guess that these two new rules break it) has to edit the libvirt-qemu abstraction directly: AFAIK there's no way to override them via a local/ include, because deny rules take precedence over allow rules. But anyway, we don't have any local/ include set up for this abstraction on Debian/Ubuntu currently, so for all practical matters it does not make a big difference. Thus, +1 for applying. And then let's keep our awareness level high and be ready to revert if we get bad feedback about it from !Ubuntu users :) Cheers, -- intrigeri -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
