[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemu: don't relabel chardev source file if virtlogd is used

Martin Kletzander mkletzan at redhat.com
Tue May 23 15:24:44 UTC 2017

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:13:17PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
>> >     while (cur != NULL) {
>> > @@ -10628,6 +10630,8 @@ virDomainChrSourceDefParseXML(virDomainChrSourceDefPtr def,
>> >                 case VIR_DOMAIN_CHR_TYPE_UNIX:
>> >                     if (!append && def->type == VIR_DOMAIN_CHR_TYPE_FILE)
>> >                         append = virXMLPropString(cur, "append");
>> > +                    if (!skipRelabel && def->type == VIR_DOMAIN_CHR_TYPE_FILE)
>> > +                        skipRelabel = virXMLPropString(cur, "skipRelabel");
>> I'm guessing you want to keep this away from users, right?  You should
>> not be parsing it from the XML then.  Or you should add a thing there
>> that the XML supports.  Not just a random attribute.
>> Either keep this data in private structure or even better, just add the
>> same thing as you would do with:
>>  <seclabel relabel="no"/>
>What sense would it make in this case? There is only one option when we're
>running virtlogd and that is no label. If they supply relabel='yes', it won't
>work with virtlogd unless they change it back to 'no'. So, you've got an option
>the functionality of which depends on a service running, which is by default on
>by the way.

If that's so clear, why put it in the XML?  Why not just set it in the
private structure then?  Either there is a reason for it to be variable
or not.  If there is not, then we're effectively talking about something
like <domain doNotFailOnStart='yes'> attribute.  There is no need for
such thing in that case.

Sure, I might be wrong.  In that case, this commit needs more explanation.

>Since I don't want to be someone who just criticizes other people's ideas
>without adding anything to the discussion, I was thinking about re-using the
>qemu config parameter stdioLogD. But that solution is also wrong as it turned
>out. I haven't come up with anything better yet, though. So, having something in
>the status XML seems like a plausible approach to me.
>> with all the details of course.  The user can see it, can supply it, old
>> releases support it, all the stuff is there already.
>> I'm open to suggestions, but NACK to random "wannabe private" attributes.
>> --
>> libvir-list mailing list
>> libvir-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
>libvir-list mailing list
>libvir-list at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20170523/964f54a1/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the libvir-list mailing list