From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43295 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OZ7G5-0005dE-Eu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:04:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ7G4-0005og-95 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:04:41 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:58572) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ7G4-0005oQ-6i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:04:40 -0400 Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o6EIogcY007972 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:50:42 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o6EJ4bCM1462320 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:04:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o6EJ4aPM014921 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:04:37 -0300 Message-ID: <4C3E0A4D.6070609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:04:45 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Make default invocation of block drivers safer References: <1279123952-1576-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <20100714184311.GA9383@lst.de> <20100714185406.GR18814@hall.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: <20100714185406.GR18814@hall.aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: Kevin Wolf , Anthony Liguori , Christoph Hellwig , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/14/2010 01:54 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:43:11PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Err, strong NACK. Please don't start messing with the contents of the >> data plane, we're getting into real trouble there. It's perfectly >> valid for a guest to create an image inside an image, and with hardware >> support for nested virtualization I guess this use case will become >> rather common, just as it already is on S/390 with VM. >> >> > Maybe it should only be done on the hard drive used to boot? > It's just as dangerous on any other disk. My use of "bootsector" in the code is probably misleading. Regards, Anthony Liguori