Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 07/27/2010 10:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> 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). > > If we add docs/deprecated-features.txt, schedule removal for at least > 1 year in the future, and put a warning in the code that prints > whenever raw is probed, I think I could warm up to this. > > Since libvirt should be insulating users from this today, I think the > fall out might not be terrible.
Okay, I'll prepare a patch.
