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=-8.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 5BD33C07E99 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:46:16 +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 190F161152 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:46:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 190F161152 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:50884 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m2y8N-0008Eq-8e for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:46:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m2y6r-0005vH-Bt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:44:41 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:58446) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m2y6k-0004qD-P4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:44:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1626104673; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=VnsiVOTGKbj5FcI7i5uiFNqM50vz2l3Voefu/DRZmEU=; b=Q6GKE+pRnC/MTzXkLRxbhEyHwHYFhdviSRRG/+8Njeua+UWk/PorRkyzyl35JqJ5Zp2DHU KL2EAg0mrjLkkt9x4j1p5NU/domxrCz9/rGZPK+g8+YviIL5WtkjVjDPeXg41ZBn3sMXVU 1oKaTuPOWG9YYlZ+itOnl3u7Bgb8Oa0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-176-gN7EchD6MVeXLdu3G8mPHg-1; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:44:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: gN7EchD6MVeXLdu3G8mPHg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF82E1094CE1; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-114-105.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.105]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9267760C17; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:44:08 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Add option to use driver whitelist even in tools Message-ID: References: <20210709164141.254097-1-kwolf@redhat.com> <20210709174517.bauuzc42l5zjawph@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.699, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:18:30AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 09.07.2021 um 19:45 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 06:41:41PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Currently, the block driver whitelists are only applied for the system > > > emulator. All other binaries still give unrestricted access to all block > > > drivers. There are use cases where this made sense because the main > > > concern was avoiding customers running VMs on less optimised block > > > drivers and getting bad performance. Allowing the same image format e.g. > > > as a target for 'qemu-img convert' is not a problem then. > > > > > > However, if the concern is the supportability of the driver in general, > > > either in full or when used read-write, not applying the list driver > > > whitelist in tools doesn't help - especially since qemu-nbd and > > > qemu-storage-daemon now give access to more or less the same operations > > > in block drivers as running a system emulator. > > > > > > In order to address this, introduce a new configure option that enforces > > > the driver whitelist in all binaries. > > > > Is it feasible that someone would want two separate lists: one for > > qemu (which runs run efficiently) and another for tools (which ones do > > we support at all)? As written, your patch offers no chance to > > distinguish between the two. > > Possibly. However, supporting a second list would require a much larger > code change than this patch, so I'd say this is a problem we should only > solve when someone actually has it. > > > Also, is now a good time to join the bandwagon on picking a more > > descriptive name (such as 'allow-list') for this terminology? > > I don't have an opinion on the time, but I do have an opinion on using a > separate email thread for it. :-) It isn't difficult - the word "white" adds no value in this arg and can simply be removed entirely right now. > Initially I tried to find a way not to use "whitelist" in the new option > name, but that only made things inconsistent and confusing, and renaming > the existing options is definitely out of scope for this patch. Calling it --block-drv-list, would be consistent with the existing --audio-drv-list. Fixing up the other existing block list args would be nice, but should not stop use of the better name in this patch right now. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|