On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
* a virNodeInfo is a structure filled by virNodeGetInfo() and providing @@ -504,6 +567,10 @@ int virDomainSetMaxMemory (virDomainPtr domain, int virDomainSetMemory (virDomainPtr domain, unsigned long memory); int virDomainGetMaxVcpus (virDomainPtr domain); +int virDomainGetSecLabel (virDomainPtr domain, + virDomainSecLabelPtr seclabel); +int virDomainGetSecModel (virDomainPtr domain, + virDomainSecModelPtr secmodel);
I'm leaning two ways on this. On the one hand I could see the virDomainGetSecModel being done against the node to match the fact that we record it in the node capabilities XML, so perhaps virNodeGetSecurityModel(virConnectPtr).
Actually, this is a call to get the node information, so I think the name should be changed.
On the other hand, we already have this info against the node,
Which came from the above call.
and conceivably you could have a domain configured with a model that doesn't match the node's model, so an explicit per-domain call is right. In that scenario, could we just put the security model data into the security label struct and have a single API
The domain doesn't have a security label until it's running, and then it must match the node's model, so I'm not sure we need to change anything except the name of virDomainGetSecModel (to virNodeGetSecurityMode). - James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>