On 16.01.2019 18:48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 06:46:39PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> >> >> On 16.01.2019 18:30, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 07:49:36AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:09:11PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>> On 11.12.2018 13:53, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's restrict memfd backend to systems with sealing support. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we need todo that - sealing is optional in the QEMU code, >>>>>> we simply have it set to the wrong default when sealing is not available. >>>>> >>>>> That was literally what I've fixed in v1: >>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg05483.html >>>>> >>>>> but 2 people suggested me to disable memfd entirely for this case. >>>>> Do you think I need to get patch from v1 back ? >>>>> >>>>> Gerd, Marc-André, what do you think? >>>> >>>> I still think it makes sense to require sealing support. Sealing is >>>> very useful, and there are only a few kernel versions with memfd but >>>> without sealing. So finding such kernels in the wild will become more >>>> rare over time. I wouldn't worry too much about them. >>> >>> -object memory-backend-memfd,id=mem,size=2M,seal=off still >>> works on those systems, doesn't it? What's the rationale for >>> breaking a working configuration without following the >>> deprecation policy? >>> >> >> See the commit message. >> '.seal' property is not registered if sealing is not supported. >> So, there is no way to disable sealing on the system that does not support >> it. > > As I pointed out a few lines up, this is simply because QEMU has a bug > setting seal=true as the built-in default value even when it isn't > supported.
So, do you think I need to return to the solution from my v1: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg05483.html ?
