Peter Krempa writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 15:10:36 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 3/11/19 2:59 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>>
>> >> auto-read-only was introduced in 3.1, at which point we intentionally
>> >> had sufficiently loose wording to permit (but not require) dynamic state
>> >> checking
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 15:10:36 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/11/19 2:59 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>
> >> auto-read-only was introduced in 3.1, at which point we intentionally
> >> had sufficiently loose wording to permit (but not require) dynamic state
> >> checking; so you are not breaking the
On 3/11/19 2:59 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> auto-read-only was introduced in 3.1, at which point we intentionally
>> had sufficiently loose wording to permit (but not require) dynamic state
>> checking; so you are not breaking the interface. On the other hand, is
>> libvirt going to have problems
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:26:08 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/11/19 11:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Until now, with auto-read-only=on we tried to open the file read-write
> > first and if that failed, read-only was tried. This is actually not good
> > enough for libvirt, which gives QEMU SELinux
On 3/11/19 11:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Until now, with auto-read-only=on we tried to open the file read-write
> first and if that failed, read-only was tried. This is actually not good
> enough for libvirt, which gives QEMU SELinux permissions for read-write
> only as soon as it actually intends
Until now, with auto-read-only=on we tried to open the file read-write
first and if that failed, read-only was tried. This is actually not good
enough for libvirt, which gives QEMU SELinux permissions for read-write
only as soon as it actually intends to write to the image. So we need to
be able to
