On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 12:35:34PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/01/15 12:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:01:23AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 01/06/2015 09:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>> I don't feel overly strongly about it; just "mechanism, not policy" > >>>> looks like a good tradition (well, good excuse anyway). > >>> > >>> Most users never see warnings. We ship it, we support it. > >>> If we don't want to support it, let's not ship it. > >> > >> Then we should rm -rf half of QEMU. :) > >> > >> Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with not baking policy into QEMU. A > >> lot of QEMU command-line hacking really is just a shortcut to avoid > >> continuous recompilation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that > >> it constitutes a stable API. > >> > >> Paolo > > > > Still, reserving part of the namespace for QEMU internal use > > is *not* policy, it's just good engineering. > > > > How about we forbid adding files under "etc/" ? > > > > That would be enough to avoid conflicts. > > Some of the current fw_cfg files, like "bootorder", are not under > "etc/".
Well bootorder is there so at least it will always fail. We do have stuff under /rom. > Hence the earlier proposal to restrict the user (to under opt/, > IIRC), rather than ourselves. > > Thanks > Laszlo How about we pre-pend opt/ to user-supplied names? Will fix this without limiting user in any way. -- MST
