From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKHh7-0002U4-Pd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:39:01 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKHh3-0002Py-2u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:39:01 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37110 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKHh2-0002Pt-VW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:38:56 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18528)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NKHh2-0001Pa-Do
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:38:56 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:36:03 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?
Message-ID: <20091214203603.GJ6150@redhat.com>
References: <20091214141143.GA1360@redhat.com>
	<20091214141341.GB1360@redhat.com> <4B264AF1.6060802@codemonkey.ws>
	<7FB8DD1225E54176BCAF5523B6AEA89B@FSCPC>
	<4B26931E.4000101@codemonkey.ws> <20091214194210.GB6150@redhat.com>
	<4B269933.3010906@codemonkey.ws> <20091214202019.GF6150@redhat.com>
	<4B26A0DE.5000304@redhat.com> <20091214203428.GI6150@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091214203428.GI6150@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: glommer@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt@gmx.de>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:34:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 09:32:30PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > On 12/14/09 21:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> So far, it's not clear to me that anyone has demonstrated how this is
> >>> harmful for people that don't want pxe booting.  Assuming we fix the bug
> >>> about rom loading, then there's really no impact to users.
> >
> > Fix (v2) is on the list already.
> >
> >> PXE booting might have security impact. You do not want to
> >> do this if you are on a hostile network.
> >
> > Option rom loaded doesn't imply pxe boot will be tried.  It only means  
> > PXE boot can be selected, either via
> >
> >   -boot order=[something with 'n' here]
> >
> > or via
> >
> >   -boot menu=on + F12 + picking menu entry
> >
> > By default qemu doesn't try to PXE-boot, even if no other bootable  
> > device is available.
> >
> > cheers,
> >   Gerd
> 
> I guess so. But then, why are we loading it in BIOS
> and wasting memory? Let's only shadow the ROM
> when PXE is selected?

Or, we could have a very small ROM, that loads
more actual code from card or from qemu directly
when it is run.

> 
> -- 
> MST