Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes:

> Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  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).  But since it's already committed, I
figure it's here to stay.