> > I find this argument contradictory. The migration code already needs to > > check whether a device is compatible before it allows migration. The > > driver name is not sufficient to ensure compatibility, so I see no > > benefit in including it in the device address. > > See my comment above, I'm not seeing a sufficient argument about why > driver name matching is a false sense of security. If on an incoming > migration I'm able to match the source provided e1000.03.0/vmstate > against the target registered e1000.03.0/vmstate and hand off to the > e1000 driver to check version ids, you bet I'm feeling a lot more secure > than if I'm handing off to whatever happened to register 03.0/vmstate on > the target. I still say it should be the migration code that checks that both vmstate structures are for the same type of device. i.e. if necessary the device name should be embedded in the device state, not the device path. Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
