On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:04:21AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 04/24/2010 12:50 AM, Laine Stump wrote: > > > >Is it really necessary to add this padding even when we *aren't* using > >dd? (ie, when is_reg == 1). > > Nevermind. Now that I've actual RTFC, I see that this new code *always* > use dd. > > However, I just noticed an SELinux complaint about dd attempting to > write to a file on an NFS-mounted directory. My system is running > SELinux in permissive mode, so it succeeded, but won't this be a problem > if it's in enforcing mode? If there is a SELinux problem I don't think it can be related to this patch. Both before & after this change we're running a child process to actually write the data. Previously cat, now dd. So SELinux would impact them equally badly/well. 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