From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NLIJ7-00054o-T4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:25 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NLIJ3-0004vu-3s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:25 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38240 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NLIJ3-0004vp-0I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:21 -0500 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:60448) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NLIJ2-00012E-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:30:16 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] A different way to ask for readonly drive Message-ID: <20091217153016.GF24967@shareable.org> References: <4B263F0B.90408@redhat.com> <4B265F7D.1010109@mail.berlios.de> <20091215184501.GB21298@shareable.org> <20091217105004.GA17205@lst.de> <20091217131635.GA24967@shareable.org> <4B2A3ED6.40908@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2A3ED6.40908@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Naphtali Sprei , Christoph Hellwig , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 17.12.2009 14:16, schrieb Jamie Lokier: > You can decide to protect your images with the qemu readonly option and > get the protection that qemu defines, or you take the permissions of the > OS and get from the OS whatever the definition of that protection is > (including write access for root). Note that until the latest patch, "chmod 444" was the _the_ user interface to this feature of qemu. It's a bad interface, but it was the only one available. qemu is weird like that, having external file permissions control an internal behaviour switch. > qemu can't and shouldn't know that you use the OS's protection but > actually don't quite mean what it's defined to be. Then I concur with Christopher Hellwig, and we should drop the "auto" behaviour entirely, and force the user interface to be the qemu command line instead of "chmod" from now one. -- Jamie