From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39489)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hch@lst.de>)
	id 1SBSEw-0006ri-2j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:46:47 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <hch@lst.de>) id 1SBSEu-0005Vo-Cq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:46:45 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52305 helo=newverein.lst.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hch@lst.de>)
	id 1SBSEu-0005Va-6l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:46:44 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:46:41 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Message-ID: <20120324144641.GA12589@lst.de>
References: <CAJSP0QUvcm_L4kf+6tDupQbEjAtLnOyEcTxddFqWVr4OY_k+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120309141653.GH4883@orkuz.home> <4F5A1DBB.3030606@laine.org>
	<CAJSP0QVaxmzxtF3Pko1JA2ty_W2_y92EX0FDFExJw422GuuZDw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJSP0QVaxmzxtF3Pko1JA2ty_W2_y92EX0FDFExJw422GuuZDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU fstatfs(2) and libvirt SELinux policy
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Khoa Huynh <khoa@us.ibm.com>, George Wilson <gcwilson@us.ibm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Laine Stump <laine@laine.org>

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:07:43PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Paolo, your discard improvements in QEMU add FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
> support.  XFS supports this fallocate() flag in current kernels,
> thereby making the XFS-specific support obsolete.
> 
> I'm wondering whether it's worth expanding the SELinux policy if we
> will have no fstatfs(2) callers in QEMU.  Are you planning to drop the
> XFS code?

FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is a very recent feature, while the ioctl has been
around for more than 10 years.  Using FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE by default
is fine, so systems that have selinux and support it will still work.