On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 3:39:44 PM CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > As recent CVE-2023-2861 once again showed, the 9p 'proxy' fs driver is in > > bad shape. Using the 'proxy' backend was already discouraged for safety > > reasons before and we recommended to use the 'local' backend instead, > > but now it is time to officially deprecate the 'proxy' backend. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > > --- > > v2 -> v3: > > * Fix copy wasted typo (-> 'backend'). > > > > MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++ > > docs/about/deprecated.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > docs/tools/virtfs-proxy-helper.rst | 3 +++ > > fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c | 5 +++++ > > fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c | 5 +++++ > > hw/9pfs/9p-proxy.c | 5 +++++ > > hw/9pfs/9p-proxy.h | 5 +++++ > > meson.build | 2 +- > > qemu-options.hx | 6 +++++- > > softmmu/vl.c | 5 +++++ > > 10 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Or would it be better to split this up, e.g. into 3 separate patches (runtime > messages, docs, MAINTAINERS)?
In general we've tended to do deprecations all in one patch like you have here. I don't think there's compelling benefit to split the patch. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
