From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39896 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Odm4f-0004Ed-Q8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:28:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Odm4d-0004zs-TN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:28:09 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:41824) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Odm4d-0004zk-R1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:28:07 -0400 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11so571238gwb.4 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C4EFB04.30901@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:28:04 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori 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> <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws> <4C4EDEF1.9060507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On 07/27/2010 10:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Kevin Wolf writes: > > >> Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> >>> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>>> Anthony Liguori 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. >> > I also dislike probed_raw, for the same reasons. > > Raw can't be probed safely, by its very nature. For historical reasons, > we try anyway. I think we should stop doing that, even though that > breaks existing use relying on the misfeature. Announce it now, spit > out scary warnings, kill it for good 1-2 releases later. > > If we're unwilling to do that, then I'd *strongly* prefer doing nothing > over silently messing with the raw writes to sector 0 (so does > Christoph, and he explained why). If we add docs/deprecated-features.txt, schedule removal for at least 1 year in the future, and put a warning in the code that prints whenever raw is probed, I think I could warm up to this. Since libvirt should be insulating users from this today, I think the fall out might not be terrible. Regards, Anthony Liguori > But since it's already committed, I > figure it's here to stay. >