[libvirt] [PATCH 5/5] remote generator: Move blacklist to a file and add explicit whitelist

[Matthias Bolte]

2011/5/10 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com>:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:45:29PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/07/2011 06:28 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> > ---
>> >  daemon/Makefile.am                 |   20 ++++-
>> >  daemon/qemu_dispatch.blacklist     |    3 +
>> >  daemon/qemu_dispatch.whitelist     |    1 +
>> >  daemon/remote_dispatch.blacklist   |   37 ++++++++
>> >  daemon/remote_dispatch.whitelist   |  169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  daemon/remote_generator.pl         |  171 +++++++++++++-----------------------
>> >  src/Makefile.am                    |   24 ++++-
>> >  src/remote/qemu_client.blacklist   |    3 +
>> >  src/remote/qemu_client.whitelist   |    1 +
>> >  src/remote/remote_client.blacklist |   47 ++++++++++
>> >  src/remote/remote_client.whitelist |  159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Hmm.  Given the difference in sizes between
>> daemon/remote_dispatch.whitelist and src/remote/remote_client.whitelist,
>> there are some functions where we are only doing half the job?  That
>> means every new API has to touch two, rather than one, file, and that's
>> out of a choice of four files.
>>
>> Maybe a better thing to do would be having a single file, that lists
>> every API, along with two states, as in:
>>
>>
>> # name   daemon  src/remote
>> function yes     no
>>
>> In fact, rather than maintaining separate files, could we instead
>> maintain this list directly in {remote,qemu}_protocol.x, via stylized
>> comments?
>>
>> enum remote_procedure {
>>     /* Each function must have a two-word comment.  The first word is
>>      * whether remote_generator.pl handles daemon, the second whether
>>      * it handles src/remote.  */
>>     REMOTE_PROC_OPEN = 1, /* yes no */
>> ...
>>
>> That way, when we add a new API, we are _already_ editing the file that
>> contains the white/blacklist, and have the precedence of the lines
>> beforehand to remind us whether we need to write manual code or rely on
>> the generator.
>>
>> Although I think that this patch does a good job as-is, I think it is
>> worth a v2 that avoids the extra files (the fewer files you have to edit
>> when adding a new API, the better).
>
> Having annotations in the .x is a nice idea. We could also annotate the
> methods with 'readonly' and 'readwrite' keywords, and use that to auto
> generate some readonly ACL checks in the dispatch code as an extra layer
> of defence.

Do you mean checks regarding the VIR_CONNECT_RO flag?

> So instead of yes|no, how about just "skipgen|autogen"

Yep, more explicit, I'll go with that.

Matthias