> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> if (!xs_rm(CTX->xsh, XBT_NULL, path))
>> LOGD(ERROR, domid, "xs_rm failed for %s", path);
>>
>> -/* We should try to destroy the device model anyway. */
>> -rc = kill_device_model(gc,
>> -
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when possible"):
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 12:26 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when
> > possible"):
> >> It wouldn’t be terribly hard to have a common “exit” to both the
> >>
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when possible"):
> Right, I didn’t notice that read_checked filtered out ENOENT (thus a non-zero
> value for ret indicates a different error).
>
> Not really sure what the best thing would be to do in that case; maybe
> returning an
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 12:26 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when
> possible"):
>> It wouldn’t be terribly hard to have a common “exit” to both the
>> kill-by-pid and kill-by-uid paths that did it once, but it would
>> involve adding
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when possible"):
> It wouldn’t be terribly hard to have a common “exit” to both the
> kill-by-pid and kill-by-uid paths that did it once, but it would
> involve adding Yet Another Function; and each additional function
> makes the code
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:57:58PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:18:59PM +, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 11/23/18 5:15 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> Does libxl__qmp_cleanup() need to be called after the kill()
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:57:58PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:18:59PM +, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 11/23/18 5:15 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > Does libxl__qmp_cleanup() need to be called after the kill() happens?
> > If not, we could put this before the kill()
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when possible"):
>> The privcmd fd that a dm_restrict'ed QEMU has gives it permission to
>> one specific domain ID. This domain ID will probably eventually be
>> used again. It is
George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 8/9] libxl: Kill QEMU by uid when possible"):
> The privcmd fd that a dm_restrict'ed QEMU has gives it permission to
> one specific domain ID. This domain ID will probably eventually be
> used again. It is therefore necessary to make absolutely sure that a
> rogue
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:18:59PM +, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 11/23/18 5:15 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> Does libxl__qmp_cleanup() need to be called after the kill() happens?
> If not, we could put this before the kill() and avoid having two call sites.
QEMU is supposed to create monitor
On 11/23/18 5:15 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> The privcmd fd that a dm_restrict'ed QEMU has gives it permission to
> one specific domain ID. This domain ID will probably eventually be
> used again. It is therefore necessary to make absolutely sure that a
> rogue QEMU process cannot hang around
The privcmd fd that a dm_restrict'ed QEMU has gives it permission to
one specific domain ID. This domain ID will probably eventually be
used again. It is therefore necessary to make absolutely sure that a
rogue QEMU process cannot hang around after its domain has exited.
Killing QEMU by pid is
12 matches
Mail list logo
