On 2/27/19 10:32 AM, John Ferlan wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, libvirt versions between 1.2.12 and 5.0.0 will >> silently ignore the new flag, rather than diagnosing that they >> don't support it; but at least silent lack of snapshots from >> an older server is not a security hole. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> --- >> include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h | 1 + >> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 13 ++++++++----- >> src/libvirt-domain.c | 5 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > > [...] > >> diff --git a/src/libvirt-domain.c b/src/libvirt-domain.c >> index 072b92b717..2691698bd5 100644 >> --- a/src/libvirt-domain.c >> +++ b/src/libvirt-domain.c >> @@ -2570,6 +2570,11 @@ virDomainGetControlInfo(virDomainPtr domain, >> * XML might not validate against the schema, so it is mainly for >> * internal use. >> * >> + * If @flags contains VIR_DOMAIN_XML_SNAPSHOTS, the XML will include > > Should we even try to say that "and supported by the target libvirt > system with the appropriate version of the software installed" ;-)... I > know implied somewhat - but perhaps notable in this (and future) cases > because of the issue mentioned in the commit message that outward facing > docs consumers may never read.
Maybe, since this is indeed enough of a break from the usual norms of rejecting unknown flags (at least for a couple of years) to be worth it. The upcoming VIR_DOMAIN_XML_CHECKPOINTS will have the same wording, of course. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
