From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:22:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100726212849.GB2651@x200.localdomain> <4C4E0C05.5030004@codemonkey.ws> <4C4E1A33.7050709@codemonkey.ws> <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws> <4C4EDEF1.9060507@redhat.com> <4C4EFB04.30901@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kevin Wolf , Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54824 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753916Ab0G1LW6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:22:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C4EFB04.30901@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of "Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:28:04 -0500") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori writes: > 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. Okay, I'll prepare a patch.