From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50042 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oe4lo-0002Ai-Ca for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:25:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe4ln-0003Gk-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:25:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1695) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oe4lm-0003Ga-VM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:25:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4C5013C1.3050101@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:25:53 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf 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> <4C4EFB04.30901@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Am 28.07.2010 13:22, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Anthony Liguori writes: > >> 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. > > Okay, I'll prepare a patch. This kills -hda and friends for raw images. I'm not sure this is a good idea. Kevin