On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:24:57PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 12/12/14 12:49, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 04:04 AM, Chunyan Liu wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Liu <cyliu(a)suse.com>
>> ---
>> src/remote/remote_driver.c | 2 +-
>> src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> struct remote_domain_send_process_signal_args {
>> remote_nonnull_domain dom;
>> hyper pid_value;
>> @@ -5550,5 +5555,11 @@ enum remote_procedure {
>> * @generate: none
>> * @acl: domain:fs_freeze
>> */
>> - REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_GET_FSINFO = 349
>> + REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_GET_FSINFO = 349,
>> +
>> + /**
>> + * @generate: both
>> + * @acl: domain:send_input
>> + */
>
> Just send_input? The result of the send is essentially 'init_control'
> right? Like a shutdown. Perhaps even like destroy (eg, 'stop'). Or
> 'shutdown'... I'm not sure of all the options here, but this seems much
> more invasive than just sending input because the result of the sent key
> is a bit more "final".
Since you are able to do the same thing with the virDomainSendKey API
which has the same ACL class:
virsh send-key dom KEY_LEFTALT KEY_SYSRQ KEY_O
I don't think it should require any other permission since it's just a
keystroke basically.
Agreed, 'send_input' basically gives away the keys to the kingdom,
so there's nothing to gain by having a separate permission for
this new API
As a general rule we should always seek to reuse existing permissions
because we don't want to end up having one permission for each separate
API
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|