On 09/22/2011 02:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>> On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>>>> grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> reliably know that. Which means relying on them being compatible
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> You described yourself how libguestfs could check it. And failing
>>>>> libguestfs doing it, the user could be warned to check it.
>>>>
>>>> I described something that is, practically speaking, impossible.
>>>
>>> you run rpm -q grub in the guest and on the host, if they are the same nvr,
>>> then they are the same package, where's the rocket science here.
>>
>> The whole point of libguestfs's usage was that the package isn't actually
>> installed in the guest. So that won't work.
>
> This is not correct, grub is installed in the guest, but we don't want
> to run it from the guest because of security problems. I outlined it
> in an earlier email in this thread.
Oh, my mistake. That being beside the point, it pretty much means any VM
created in a previous OS release won't work. In any case I totally disagree
with your idea of security, as I mentioned at the time. It makes things worse,
not better.
And that's still ignoring that grub1 needs to completely go away.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
