Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/5] qdev: Create qdev_get_dev_path()

Chris Wright
2010-06-16T00:26:05Z

* Paul Brook (paul@codesourcery.com) wrote:
> > > 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.

I not sure how that fixes the ramblock issue that started this whole
discussion. It's not part of device's vmstate, it goes w/ ram. I think
I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here?

thanks,
-chris