From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39DC2606A31C for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=a2W/hXjC Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xMRMZ-0003id-G5; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:44:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xMRMX-0003iS-Gg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:44:17 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xMRMV-00087j-8Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:44:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1793285054; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DkarqvwLDyEO2/KUFbXosq2zlWvQV4x3XVi40EkEa1U=; b=a2W/hXjC6tr685oFqkGvo17FFjeUDJPwpZ/uaVRJLcqzcsrh27IKjQJDJeKRULU8Un0rNU HvcQmnewm44G+QJKgE+AOvFnkh9JXYJv6nVzsodLhmYsY4Cf8vAJpig7Ja5lDtFS6WRIkP dsFXCglqR5pzkE/7nb4B2DfmTU4+fUQ= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-163-4Nd2JNKiPbCItdhXP0QPiA-1; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:44:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4Nd2JNKiPbCItdhXP0QPiA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 4Nd2JNKiPbCItdhXP0QPiA_1793285045 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E68841800840 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (headnet04.pony-001.prod.iad2.dc.redhat.com [10.2.32.116]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C76D195608B; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:44:01 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Markus Armbruster Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] qemu-options: document -compat insecure-input parameter Message-ID: References: <20261028133603.1893289-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20261028133603.1893289-8-berrange@redhat.com> <871p99gfrf.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87wlr0bnmo.fsf@pond.sub.org> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87wlr0bnmo.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.2 (2026-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_FAKE_RF=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 03:13:51PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé writes: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 07:52:36AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Daniel P. Berrangé writes: > >> > >> > This adds documentation for the previously added 'insecure-input' > >> > parameter to -compat, which controls policy for insecure > >> > configuration requests. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé > >> > --- > >> > qemu-options.hx | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > >> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > If we put a check in qdev_realize(), then we need to add annotations > > for *all* types, before the -compat insecure-input=.... option is > > viable to use. That requires a much bigger effort to mark all types. > > > > In the 12.0 dev cycle, my intention is to > > > > a) Expand ".secure = true" markers to all parents of leaf node types > > marked secure, and enforce them. > > b) Expand ".secure = true" markers to all built-in devices that are > > indirectly created by a leaf node type marked secure, when > > -nodefaults is present > > > > Once (b) is done, then qdev_realize() will likely be the better place > > to put the policy check. > > Let's see whether I got this. > > * A type can be known to be secure, known to be insecure, or unknown. > > * Exactly the types known to be secure are marked secure. Thus, the > policy check must treat known to be insecure and unknown the same, > which makes sense. Yes, we're explicitly not distinguishing 'insecure' vs 'unknown' either internally or externally. Something is either explicitly marked as secure, otherwise it is insecure. > * We start with all types unknown. aka all types are insecure. > * To move a type from unknown to known, we need to examine it. > Examining all types in time for the next release is infeasible. Even > examining all types usable with a useful set of machines is > infeasible. What is feasible is examining a useful set of types > available with certain user interfaces, so that's what we did. Yes. > * We check the policy in these interfaces only. This lets users > restrict these interfaces to known secure types, which is useful. Yes. > * However, types created differently get a blanket exception. Not > ideal, but no worse than before, unless the new policy creates a false > sense of security. The best we can (and should) do about that is to > clearly document the policy's current limitations. > > Right? Yes. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|