From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF39C433DF for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF9C20639 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crudebyte.com header.i=@crudebyte.com header.b="eg96V0rN" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BAF9C20639 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=crudebyte.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:48956 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8Ov2-0005HF-10 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:18:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8OuG-0004QA-Cs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:17:36 -0400 Received: from lizzy.crudebyte.com ([91.194.90.13]:49421) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8OuE-0007M3-Iz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:17:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crudebyte.com; s=lizzy; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/pqxlgbJiOoFey+/cR0F1JNDYpIW3EumvG38kmPg88Q=; b=eg96V0rNaakoO+qJc0iACQNOqJ 00jh3ITqnK2frkdF4kXJOmTjNWr5YBYcikIGy6oYCtRB/QMqSq74De1gHy9icOnuzROTLCsFfv0oM h+YtvQsZ0OIFnKGE0+2sP29hiQZtKq86/Bg3IFM8yFGK5CUGconqPBEFML+RRsY5o4vFhi2tUWAY6 aAyTOXh2e77eR1OTQGWh44sioupDi64VbVJJgP/iFK5osfkZMNCA9V0ylAk6b23pavXCDvRpvdp3x qa6ILcKqLAfQAgDqeKS+CW+pyPFeNMw34K3zhqv+tK/82IjXKzkCT1/rwtZfm97OChJQehZohSEYg ZG4JEdlw==; From: Christian Schoenebeck To: David Vossel Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michal Privoznik , Fabian Deutsch Subject: Re: guest agent public ssh key add/remove support? Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:17:30 +0200 Message-ID: <63919092.VjiBKyA9Op@silver> In-Reply-To: References: <2310267.m5nKHIMqSz@silver> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=91.194.90.13; envelope-from=qemu_oss@crudebyte.com; helo=lizzy.crudebyte.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/19 07:30:08 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mittwoch, 19. August 2020 15:49:50 CEST David Vossel wrote: > > There are two pass-through file systems in QEMU: 9pfs and virtiofs. Don't > > you > > think they would be sufficient for the use case? > > probably not entirely. > > Understand this isn't an either/or scenario. Our api has been designed to > support multiple "propagation" methods for the ssh keys. We've converged on > the qemu guest agent for some other features and the agent appears to have > the potential to provide us the greatest flexibility when it comes to how > we want this pub ssh key use case to work. This isn't to say something > like virtiofs won't make sense either in certain scenarios, but for the > purposes of this discussion we're hoping to explore how the qemu guest > agent could be used. > > I don't want to go too deep into the shared filesystem approach. I'll > provide some context on the challenges there though. Expected response, but I could not resist. ;-) > - virtiofs requires guest kernel >= 5.4. We aren't considering 9p due to > security/performance concerns. Hey, there had been no security issue for quite a while with 9pfs. :) And I am working on the performance issues actually. Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck