[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] RFC: luks/encrypted qcow2 ke

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] RFC: luks/encrypted qcow2 key management
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:18:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)

Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 14.08.2019 um 23:08 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
>> On 8/14/19 3:22 PM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> > This is an issue that was raised today on IRC with Kevin Wolf. Really 
>> > thanks
>> > for the idea!
>> > 
>> > We agreed that this new qmp interface should take the same options as
>> > blockdev-create does, however since we want to be able to edit the 
>> > encryption
>> > slots separately, this implies that we sort of need to allow this on 
>> > creation
>> > time as well.
>> > 
>> > Also the BlockdevCreateOptions is a union, which is specialized by the 
>> > driver name
>> > which is great for creation, but for update, the driver name is already 
>> > known,
>> > and thus the user should not be forced to pass it again.
>> > However qmp doesn't seem to support union type guessing based on actual 
>> > fields
>> > given (this might not be desired either), which complicates this somewhat.
>> Does the idea of a union type with a default value for the discriminator
>> help?  Maybe we have a discriminator which defaults to 'auto', and add a
>> union branch 'auto':'any'.  During creation, if the "driver":"auto"
>> branch is selected (usually implicitly by omitting "driver", but also
>> possible explicitly), the creation attempt is rejected as invalid
>> regardless of the contents of the remaining 'any'.  But during amend
>> usage, if the 'auto' branch is selected, we then add in the proper
>> "driver":"xyz" and reparse the QAPI object to determine if the remaining
>> fields in 'any' still meet the specification for the required driver branch.
>> This idea may still require some tweaks to the QAPI generator, but it's
>> the best I can come up with for a way to parse an arbitrary JSON object
>> with unknown validation, then reparse it again after adding more
>> information that would constrain the parse differently.
> Feels like this would be a lot of code just to allow the client to omit
> passing a value that it knows anyway. If this were a human interface, I
> could understand the desire to make commands less verbose, but for QMP I
> honestly don't see the point when it's not trivial.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]