On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:47:30PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:54:01PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
> > turned it on by default, requiring explicit user opt-in. This leaves
> > users
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:54:01PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
> turned it on by default, requiring explicit user opt-in. This leaves
> users unprotected against accidents out of the box.
>
> By turning it on by default,
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:09:07 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:05:17PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:02:54 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:05:17PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:02:54 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 18:11:28 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:02:54 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 18:11:28 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:04:54PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 18:11:28 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:04:54PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 16:54:01 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > > The virtlockd daemon has
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 18:11:28 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:04:54PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 16:54:01 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
> > > turned it on by default,
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:04:54PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 16:54:01 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
> > turned it on by default, requiring explicit user opt-in. This leaves
> > users unprotected
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 16:54:01 +, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
> turned it on by default, requiring explicit user opt-in. This leaves
> users unprotected against accidents out of the box.
>
> By turning it on by default, users
The virtlockd daemon has existed for years now, but we have never
turned it on by default, requiring explicit user opt-in. This leaves
users unprotected against accidents out of the box.
By turning it on by default, users will at least be protected for
mistakes involving local files, and files on
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
> no locking. This gives users an unsafe deployment by
> default unless they know to turn on lockd.
Does the
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:28:56PM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> > have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
> > no locking. This gives users an unsafe
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
> no locking. This gives users an unsafe deployment by
> default unless they know to turn on lockd. virtlockd
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:47:02PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:28:56PM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> > > have always defaulted to the
On 01/22/2016 02:35 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
>> have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
>> no locking. This gives users an unsafe deployment by
>>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
> no locking. This gives users an unsafe deployment by
> default unless they know to turn on lockd. virtlockd
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:35:33PM -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 02:35 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:56:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
> >> have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver
We have had virtlockd available for a long time now but
have always defaulted to the 'nop' lock driver which does
no locking. This gives users an unsafe deployment by
default unless they know to turn on lockd. virtlockd will
auto-activate via systemd when guests launch, so setting
it on by default
18 matches
Mail list logo
