On 04/18/2018 08:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> @@ -3195,6 +3215,8 @@
>>> '*conf': 'str',
>>> '*snapshot': 'str',
>>> '*user': 'str',
>>> + '*auth-none': 'bool',
>>> + '*auth-cephx': 'RbdAuthCephx',
>>> '*server': ['InetSocketAddressBase'] } }
>>
>> Would it be better to have this be a flat union with 'auth' with enum
>> values 'none', 'cephx', 'both' as a discriminator that determines which
>> additional fields can be present? Or does that require that we first
>> fix the QAPI generator to allow nesting a flat union within another flat
>> union (probably doable, just no one has needed it before now)? Is it
>> also time to improve the QAPI generator to allow a default value to the
>> discriminator field, rather than requiring the field to be present?
>
> Both options can be enabled at the same time, so that the client
> connects to a server no matter whether it does 'cephx' authentication or
> only 'none. This is even the default for rbd driver (in the existing
> command line interface, but I think we need to stay compatible with it).
> With a union you would have to explicitly choose one or the other, but
> could never accept both.
>
> The other option we were considering was a list of authentication
> options, which would be easier to implement, but isn't really an
> accurate representation of what we really accept. There is no way we
> could meaningfully implement something like this:
>
> 'auth': [ { 'type': 'cephx', 'key-secret': 'foo' },
> { 'type': 'cephx', 'key-secret': 'bar' } ]
>
> Because Ceph only allows us to enable the 'cephx' authentication method
> and to set a single key for it.
How does it look as a choice between:
{'enum':'CephxAuth', 'data': ['none', 'cephx', 'both' ]}
where both 'cephx' and 'both' support the optional 'key-secret'
parameter, but 'none' does not?
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
