[libvirt] [PATCH v3 00/28] Introduce metadata locking

[Michal Privoznik]

On 08/31/2018 03:33 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:08:13AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> v3 of:
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg00814.html
>>
>> What has changed since v2? A lot.
>> - The lock manager was moved into security manager (which requires a lot
>>   of preparation which is done in first 8 or so patches).
>>
>> - The VIR_LOCK_SPACE_ACQUIRE_WAIT flag (2/7 in v2) is dropped as it
>>   turned out to be harmful. virlockd can't block under any
>>   circumstances. And we can not introduce a thread pool for it.
>>
>> - While going through the code I've found couple of bugs which I'm
>>   fixing in first few patches.
> 
> I've not done a detailed per patch code review, but having looked
> at the overall design concept across the patches, I think it looks
> pretty good. Only one conceptual comment....
> 
>>  cfg.mk                             |   4 +-
>>  src/libvirt_private.syms           |   2 +
>>  src/locking/lock_daemon.c          |   3 +
>>  src/locking/lock_daemon_dispatch.c |  25 +-
>>  src/locking/lock_driver.h          |  38 +++
>>  src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c    | 520 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.h    |   1 +
>>  src/locking/lock_driver_nop.c      |  14 +
>>  src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c  |  50 ++--
>>  src/locking/lock_manager.c         |  31 ++-
>>  src/locking/lock_manager.h         |   7 +
>>  src/qemu/libvirtd_qemu.aug         |   1 +
>>  src/qemu/qemu.conf                 |   6 +
>>  src/qemu/qemu_conf.c               |  13 +
>>  src/qemu/qemu_conf.h               |   1 +
>>  src/qemu/qemu_driver.c             |  12 +-
>>  src/qemu/test_libvirtd_qemu.aug.in |   1 +
>>  src/security/security_dac.c        | 213 +++++++++------
>>  src/security/security_manager.c    | 366 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  src/security/security_manager.h    |  17 +-
> 
> Why no integration into the security_selinux.c driver ? The apparmor
> driver probably doesn't need it as it doesn't touchthe files to setup
> its security profile, but SELinux should need protection.

Yes it does. I should have noted that selinux driver is WIP. Firstly I
wanted to see if the patches I posted are good and if they were I'll
post patches for selinux.

Sorry for the confusion.

Michal