From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O6PIB-0006yI-06
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:28:11 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50935 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6PI9-0006xp-Iv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:28:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1O6PI7-0001iu-UD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:28:09 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com ([209.85.222.204]:65278)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1O6PI7-0001ik-O0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:28:07 -0400
Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so7903664pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BD5A2F2.7070805@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:28:02 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [libvirt] Libvirt debug API
References: <4BD1971B.7060907@redhat.com>
	<4BD1A543.1050004@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD1ADA2.2050605@redhat.com>
	<4BD1E723.6070005@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD2BDE0.7020907@redhat.com>
	<4BD3B965.3060205@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD42CDB.2030901@redhat.com>
	<4BD4F20D.8030901@codemonkey.ws>	<20100426095949.GA1342@redhat.com>
	<4BD5915F.3060405@codemonkey.ws>	<20100426133120.GD1342@redhat.com>
	<4BD59874.2000207@codemonkey.ws> <4BD59C9E.2000506@redhat.com>
	<4BD5A109.9060004@codemonkey.ws> <4BD5A263.3070908@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD5A263.3070908@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: "libvir-list@redhat.com" <libvir-list@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>

On 04/26/2010 09:25 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 04/26/2010 09:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2010 04:43 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>> The reason I lean toward the direct launch model is that it gives 
>>>> the user a lot of flexibility in terms of using things like 
>>>> namespaces, DAC, cgroups, capabilities, etc.  A lot of potential 
>>>> features are lost when you do indirect launch because you have to 
>>>> teach the daemon how to support each of these features.
>>>
>>> But what's the alternative?  Teach the user how to do all these things?
>>
>> You can expose layers of API.  The lowest layer makes no changes to 
>> the security context.  A higher (optional) layer could do dynamic 
>> labelling.
>
> Or a library that the user-written launcher calls.  Or a plugin that 
> qemud calls.

A plugin would lose the security context.  It could attempt to recreate 
it that seems like a lot of unnecessary complexity.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori