Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] qom: allow to mark objects as deprecated or not secure.

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 01:07:44PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Add flags to ObjectClass for objects which are deprecated or not secure.
>> > Add 'deprecated' and 'not-secure' bools to ObjectTypeInfo, report in
>> > 'qom-list-types'.  Print the flags when listing devices via '-device
>> > help'.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

[...]

>> > diff --git a/qapi/qom.json b/qapi/qom.json
>> > index 8bd299265e39..3f20d4c6413b 100644
>> > --- a/qapi/qom.json
>> > +++ b/qapi/qom.json
>> > @@ -163,10 +163,16 @@
>> >  #
>> >  # @parent: Name of parent type, if any (since 2.10)
>> >  #
>> > +# @deprecated: the type is deprecated (since 9.1)
>> > +#
>> > +# @not-secure: the type (typically a device) is not considered
>> > +#     a security boundary (since 9.1)
>> 
>> What does this mean?  Does it mean "do not add an instance of this
>> device the guest unless you trust the guest"?
>
> Essentially yes. This ties to our security doc where we declare
> we won't consider non-virtualization use cases as being security
> bugs (CVEs) as large parts of QEMU haven't been designed to
> provide a guest security boundary
>
>   https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/security.html

Would it make sense to add a suitable pointer to the doc comment?