From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKHqE-0008GQ-GS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:48:26 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKHq9-0008CJ-Gk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:48:26 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59429 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKHq9-0008C4-An
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:48:21 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:56132)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <herbszt@gmx.de>) id 1NKHq8-0002Cr-DL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:48:21 -0500
Message-ID: <D50E43944FFE4B9A86FB5C411519F78D@FSCPC>
From: "Sebastian Herbszt" <herbszt@gmx.de>
References: <4B2647AF.1030605@codemonkey.ws> <20091214141143.GA1360@redhat.com>
	<20091214141341.GB1360@redhat.com> <4B264AF1.6060802@codemonkey.ws>
	<7FB8DD1225E54176BCAF5523B6AEA89B@FSCPC>
	<4B26931E.4000101@codemonkey.ws> <20091214194210.GB6150@redhat.com>
	<4B269933.3010906@codemonkey.ws> <20091214202019.GF6150@redhat.com>
	<4B26A0DE.5000304@redhat.com> <20091214203428.GI6150@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091214203428.GI6150@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:47:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: glommer@redhat.com, Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 09:32:30PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> On 12/14/09 21:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> So far, it's not clear to me that anyone has demonstrated how this is
>>>> harmful for people that don't want pxe booting.  Assuming we fix the bug
>>>> about rom loading, then there's really no impact to users.
>>
>> Fix (v2) is on the list already.
>>
>>> PXE booting might have security impact. You do not want to
>>> do this if you are on a hostile network.
>>
>> Option rom loaded doesn't imply pxe boot will be tried.  It only means  
>> PXE boot can be selected, either via
>>
>>   -boot order=[something with 'n' here]
>>
>> or via
>>
>>   -boot menu=on + F12 + picking menu entry
>>
>> By default qemu doesn't try to PXE-boot, even if no other bootable  
>> device is available.
>>
>> cheers,
>>   Gerd
> 
> I guess so. But then, why are we loading it in BIOS
> and wasting memory? Let's only shadow the ROM
> when PXE is selected?

Some DOS-based software might need the UMA (RAM UMB).

- Sebastian