From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:28:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4C4EFB04.30901@codemonkey.ws> References: <20100726212849.GB2651@x200.localdomain> <4C4E0C05.5030004@codemonkey.ws> <4C4E1A33.7050709@codemonkey.ws> <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws> <4C4EDEF1.9060507@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kevin Wolf , Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Markus Armbruster Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:47953 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752661Ab0G0P2J (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:28:09 -0400 Received: by yxg6 with SMTP id 6so524713yxg.19 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/27/2010 10:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Kevin Wolf writes: > > >> Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> >>> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>>> Anthony Liguori 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. >