On 4/7/26 5:13 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 11:12:28 -0400, Cole Robinson via Devel wrote: >> Fixed to abide domain seclabel model='dac' override >> >> Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <[email protected]> >> --- >> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c >> index d3daa0fe17..efbcdc6d2d 100644 >> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c >> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c >> @@ -5832,10 +5832,13 @@ void qemuDomainObjCheckTaint(virQEMUDriver *driver, >> g_autoptr(virQEMUDriverConfig) cfg = virQEMUDriverGetConfig(driver); >> qemuDomainObjPrivate *priv = obj->privateData; >> bool custom_hypervisor_feat = false; >> + uid_t uid; >> + gid_t gid; >> >> + qemuDomainGetImageIds(cfg, obj->def, NULL, NULL, &uid, &gid); >
Thanks for the reviews! I pushed 1 and 14. > I've noticed this a bit further down, but this is the first point where > the qemuDomainGetImageIds name is starting to become misleading. The > seclabel of the whole VM object is considered here and doesn't depend on > any 'image' uid/gid. > > Renaming the function may be waranted before the whole refactor. > Yeah that's fair. qemuDomainGetDACIds sound good? Or just qemuDomainGetIds? qemuDomainGetUidGid ? naming is not my forte Since you gave reviewed-by to 1-10 with comments, would you be fine with pushing those with function renamed and comments addressed, or rather I respin the whole series? I'm happy to do either Thanks, Cole
