On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > FYI, I just verified that the restore failures I was seeing after > applying this patch were actually happening *without* the patch as well, > and are unrelated to domain save (it's a race condition in domain > restore that needs to be dealt with separately), so this patch is okay > to put in > > I verified I've been testing with an unmodified form of this patch, > *EXCEPT* that I hadn't done make syntax-check on it (since I didn't > really think that it was working code at the time ;-)), and there is one > occurence of white-space at the end of a line. > > Should I resend with that change? Or do you want to just fix it up? No, that's fine. > > Also, notice that this patch saves the domain file with 0660 permission > (umask will normally turn it into 0640) as we had thought that would be > part of the way to allow restore from a root-squashed NFS server (just > make sure that the reader had group read permissions). Now it seems we > will be using the trick of running the restore code setuid instead, so > the 0660 mode will no longer necessary. Should I revise this patch to > create the file as 0600, or just do that as part of the upcoming domain > restore patch? 0660 will be OK, since we setgid() too. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list