On 07/27/2010 10:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Kevin Wolf<kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori<anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
- any additional input on probed_raw?
Isn't it a fait accompli? I stopped providing input when commit
79368c81 appeared.
No. 79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a
security hole). But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied
with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw. I was hoping to get a
little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether
probed_raw was more agreeable.
Actually I believe qraw is less agreeable. It just too much magic. You
wouldn't expect that your raw images are turned into some other format
that you can't mount or use with any other program any more.
I also dislike probed_raw, for the same reasons.
Raw can't be probed safely, by its very nature. For historical reasons,
we try anyway. I think we should stop doing that, even though that
breaks existing use relying on the misfeature. Announce it now, spit
out scary warnings, kill it for good 1-2 releases later.
If we're unwilling to do that, then I'd *strongly* prefer doing nothing
over silently messing with the raw writes to sector 0 (so does
Christoph, and he explained why).
If we add docs/deprecated-features.txt, schedule removal for at least 1
year in the future, and put a warning in the code that prints whenever
raw is probed, I think I could warm up to this.
Since libvirt should be insulating users from this today, I think the
fall out might not be terrible.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
But since it's already committed, I
figure it's here to stay.
--
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
