On 01/27/2012 08:18 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
In any case adding rawio (which is a per-process capability) to adisk
element would be wrong.
It is true that process capability affects not per disk but a domain.
It's a bit strange, but it is OK in my personal opinion.
No, this must be made very
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:38:48AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/27/2012 08:18 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
In any case adding rawio (which is a per-process capability) to adisk
element would be wrong.
It is true that process capability affects not per disk but a domain.
It's a bit
On 01/27/2012 02:30 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Yep, I tend to agree. We should have
1. rawio=yes|nmo on thedisk element somewhere
2. Give the QEMU process CAP_SYS_RAWIO
3. Use the devices cgroup to specify which individual disks
can use rawio.
That said I don't think we
On 01/20/2012 07:25 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
OK. I'll try to implement like this way.
No, I think your current patch is fine. Perhaps in the future we can
try to implement cgroup-based whitelists in the kernel.
In any case adding rawio (which is a per-process capability) to a disk
element
On 01/19/2012 10:48 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/19/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/18/2012 12:38 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
I am now wondering if we should do this in a different way. ie if
there is some XML configuration
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/18/2012 12:38 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
I am now wondering if we should do this in a different way. ie if
there is some XML configuration parameter for the disk that
indicates the need for rawio, then libvirt could automatically
On 01/19/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/18/2012 12:38 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
I am now wondering if we should do this in a different way. ie if
there is some XML configuration parameter for the disk that
indicates the
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:41 -0700
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/19/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/18/2012 12:38 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
I am now wondering if we should do this in a different way. ie if
Sorry for late response.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:46:08 +
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:25:27PM +0900, Taku Izumi wrote:
Hi Osier-san, Daniel-san, and all,
This patchset adds an option for KVM guests to retain arbitrary
capabilities.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:25:27PM +0900, Taku Izumi wrote:
Hi Osier-san, Daniel-san, and all,
This patchset adds an option for KVM guests to retain arbitrary capabilities.
The previous versions are here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-December/msg00857.html
Hi Osier-san, Daniel-san, and all,
This patchset adds an option for KVM guests to retain arbitrary capabilities.
The previous versions are here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-December/msg00857.html
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-December/msg00950.html
v2
11 matches
Mail list logo
