On 08/22/2011 03:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think
On 08/23/2011 09:26 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 03:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryantcor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryantcor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryantcor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryantcor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On 08/23/2011 11:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryantcor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
need a tool shipped from the qemu source tree to open and set up the
FDs, and not someone external. With that setup in place we can use
a protocol
On 08/22/2011 11:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
need a tool shipped from the qemu source tree to open and set up the
FDs, and not someone
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
need a tool shipped from the qemu source tree to open and set up the
FDs, and
On 08/22/2011 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
need a tool shipped from the
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for
sandboxing,
but the passing should be
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
You certainly could avoid the fd passing by having qemu-fe do the
open though and just let qemu-fe run without
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
You certainly could avoid the fd passing by having qemu-fe do
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
You certainly could avoid the fd passing by
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant cor...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic
19 matches
Mail list logo
