Il 12/09/2012 10:05, James Bottomley ha scritto:
> This is why the whole filter thing was mutable via sysfs. That way the
> admin could set this up per device. It sounds like this is what you
> want to fix, rather than opening up more holes in an already leaky
> security apparatus.
It is, thanks
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 19:56 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The set of use cases is so variable that no single filter can accomodate
> all of them: high availability people want persistent reservations, NAS
> people want trim/discard, but these are just two groups. Someone is
> using a Windows VM to
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 12/09/2012 00:02, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
>> SG_IO itself is a bypassing interface. It bypasses most of block
>> layer and the kernel doesn't have any idea (apart from the adhoc
>> filtering) about what's going on.
>
> That's very m
Il 12/09/2012 00:02, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> SG_IO itself is a bypassing interface. It bypasses most of block
> layer and the kernel doesn't have any idea (apart from the adhoc
> filtering) about what's going on.
That's very much the point. The guest must have free reins.
You asked "Could being
Hello, Paolo.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:50:38PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Either way, with or without virtualization, making detailed error
> > information to userland is a valid goal. I *think* we're finally
> > getting there after years of talking via structured printk. I don't
> > know
[Al: you can jump down to "One problem:"]
Il 11/09/2012 22:01, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:24:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Couldn't it intercept some of them - e.g. RWs and discards?
>>> What's the benifit / use case of doing pure bypass?
>>
>> Bas
Hello, Paolo.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:24:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Couldn't it intercept some of them - e.g. RWs and discards?
> > What's the benifit / use case of doing pure bypass?
>
> Basically, using the same storage technology for bare metal and
> virtualized systems. IMHO los
Il 11/09/2012 21:13, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:54:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:56:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Understood; unfortunately, there is another major user of it
(virtualization). If you are pass
Hello, Paolo.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:54:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:56:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Understood; unfortunately, there is another major user of it
> >> (virtualization). If you are passing "raw" LUNs down to a virtual
> >> machine, th
Il 11/09/2012 20:29, Tejun Heo ha scritto:> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:56:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Understood; unfortunately, there is another major user of it
>> (virtualization). If you are passing "raw" LUNs down to a virtual
>> machine, there's no possibility at a
Hello, Paolo.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:56:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Understood; unfortunately, there is another major user of it
> (virtualization). If you are passing "raw" LUNs down to a virtual
> machine, there's no possibility at all to use a properly encapsulated
Is there still c
Il 11/09/2012 18:59, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> FWIW, I don't think this is the right way to expose functionality
> which needs management in terms of access control, interpretation
> (stacking drivers) and serving concurrent users. SG_IO filtering was
> mostly for cd/dvd burning and other removeable
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 06:30:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
> the process who wishes to send them. These commands can be useful also to
> non-privileged programs who have access to the block devices. For exampl
Subject: Re: [Ping^3] Re: [PATCH] sg_io: allow UNMAP and WRITE SAME without
> CAP_SYS_RAWIO
>
> Il 06/09/2012 14:08, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
> >> According to the standard, the translation layer can write a
> >> user-provided pattern to every sector in the disk. It&#x
Il 06/09/2012 14:08, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
>> According to the standard, the translation layer can write a
>> user-provided pattern to every sector in the disk. It's an optional
>> feature and libata doesn't do that, but it is still possible.
>
> It is not possible today with our stack though,
On 09/06/2012 07:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 06/09/2012 13:31, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
Both of these commands are destructive. WRITE_SAME (if done without the
discard bits set) can also take a very long time to be destructive and
tie up the storage.
FORMAT_UNIT has the same characteristics a
Il 06/09/2012 13:31, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
>>> Both of these commands are destructive. WRITE_SAME (if done without the
>>> discard bits set) can also take a very long time to be destructive and
>>> tie up the storage.
>>
>> FORMAT_UNIT has the same characteristics and yet it is allowed (btw, I
>>
On 09/06/2012 02:31 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/09/2012 22:18, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
Hi Paolo,
Both of these commands are destructive. WRITE_SAME (if done without the
discard bits set) can also take a very long time to be destructive and
tie up the storage.
FORMAT_UNIT has the same charac
Il 05/09/2012 22:18, Ric Wheeler ha scritto:
>>
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Both of these commands are destructive. WRITE_SAME (if done without the
> discard bits set) can also take a very long time to be destructive and
> tie up the storage.
FORMAT_UNIT has the same characteristics and yet it is allowed
On 09/05/2012 10:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 28/08/2012 13:04, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 01/08/2012 17:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 20/07/2012 18:30, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
the process who wishes to send the
Il 28/08/2012 13:04, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> Il 01/08/2012 17:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> Il 20/07/2012 18:30, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>>> These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
>>> the process who wishes to send them. These commands can be useful also
Il 01/08/2012 17:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> Il 20/07/2012 18:30, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
>> the process who wishes to send them. These commands can be useful also to
>> non-privileged programs who have access to th
Il 20/07/2012 18:30, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
> the process who wishes to send them. These commands can be useful also to
> non-privileged programs who have access to the block devices. For example
> a virtual machine mo
These commands cannot be issued right now without giving CAP_SYS_RAWIO to
the process who wishes to send them. These commands can be useful also to
non-privileged programs who have access to the block devices. For example
a virtual machine monitor needs them to forward trim/discard to host disks.
24 matches
Mail list logo
