Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: >>> >>> >>>> - any additional input on probed_raw? >>>> >>> Isn't it a fait accompli? I stopped providing input when commit >>> 79368c81 appeared. >>> >> >> No. 79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a >> security hole). But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied >> with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw. I was hoping to get a >> little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether >> probed_raw was more agreeable. > > Actually I believe qraw is less agreeable. It just too much magic. You > wouldn't expect that your raw images are turned into some other format > that you can't mount or use with any other program any more.
I also dislike probed_raw, for the same reasons. Raw can't be probed safely, by its very nature. For historical reasons, we try anyway. I think we should stop doing that, even though that breaks existing use relying on the misfeature. Announce it now, spit out scary warnings, kill it for good 1-2 releases later. If we're unwilling to do that, then I'd *strongly* prefer doing nothing over silently messing with the raw writes to sector 0 (so does Christoph, and he explained why). But since it's already committed, I figure it's here to stay.
