On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:57:34PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42:52PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>If locking the domain failed, files were already labelled and thus we
> >>restored the p
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42:52PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
If locking the domain failed, files were already labelled and thus we
restored the previous label on them. Having disks on NFS means the
domain having the lock
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42:52PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > If locking the domain failed, files were already labelled and thus we
> > restored the previous label on them. Having disks on NFS means the
> > domain havin
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> If locking the domain failed, files were already labelled and thus we
> restored the previous label on them. Having disks on NFS means the
> domain having the lock already gets permission denial.
>
> This code moves the labellin
If locking the domain failed, files were already labelled and thus we
restored the previous label on them. Having disks on NFS means the
domain having the lock already gets permission denial.
This code moves the labelling part into the command hook since it's
still privileged, and also moves the
