On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 05:09:21PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 30/9/08 16:30, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Console data
> > 
> > /local/domain/%d/console/vnc-port
> > /local/domain/%d/console/tty
>
> Duplicating this pair of nodes sounds fine to me, *but* then libvirt is
> simply remaining vulnerable to the kind of attack we're are looking to
> avoid? Can any good really come from keeping the old locations?
Given that this is security sensitive, I have no objection to updating
libvirt to read from the new locations. The only thing I need to work 
out is a reliable way to choose when to use the new location, vs the 
looking at old location (for compat with existing deployments). 
Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel