From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55549 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OdkCj-00069l-2w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:28:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OdkCh-0003BZ-Ku
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:28:20 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52833)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OdkCh-0003BR-9Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:28:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4C4EDEF1.9060507@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:28:17 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27
References: <20100726212849.GB2651@x200.localdomain>	<4C4E0C05.5030004@codemonkey.ws>	<4C4E1A33.7050709@codemonkey.ws>	<m3wrshqtnc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  writes:
>>
>>    
>>> - any additional input on probed_raw?
>>>      
>> Isn't it a fait accompli?  I stopped providing input when commit
>> 79368c81 appeared.
>>    
> 
> No.  79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a 
> security hole).  But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied 
> with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw.  I was hoping to get a 
> little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether 
> probed_raw was more agreeable.

Actually I believe qraw is less agreeable. It just too much magic. You
wouldn't expect that your raw images are turned into some other format
that you can't mount or use with any other program any more.

Kevin