From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MhUs6-000764-Ig for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:50:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MhUs1-00074p-C1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:50:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43616 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MhUs1-00074m-97 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:49:57 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:20617) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MhUs0-0001Bs-RN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:49:56 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f203.google.com ([209.85.221.203]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MhUrz-0001q4-MN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:49:55 -0400 Received: by qyk41 with SMTP id 41so1882121qyk.18 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A99946F.9040307@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:51 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] ATAPI CDROM passthrough v5 References: <19074.63829.151234.423348@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <200908282021.45227.bique.alexandre@gmail.com> <4A9982EC.9000509@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <4A9982EC.9000509@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger Cc: Ian Jackson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Bique Alexandre Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 28.08.2009 22:21, Bique Alexandre wrote: > >> On Wednesday 12 August 2009 17:18:13 Ian Jackson wrote: >> >> >>>> Also, I think Paul and I both requested that fw upgrade not be >>>> disabled by default. >>>> >>>> >>> As previously discussed I think this is a mistake, but it's a decision >>> for qemu upstream to make so I have changed this. >>> >>> > > Anyone up for writing a security advisory about this?\ > Eh? If you do hardware passthrough, the guest can mess up the device. This is always going to be true and it's a security problem IMHO to make the user think anything other than that. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > > >