From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>, "Fam Zheng" <fam@euphon.net>,
"Daniel P.Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
"Max Reitz" <mreitz@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] RFC: luks/encrypted qcow2 key management
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:22:02 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f42137c5b25a493f4614a89a13b33cab5e9309f.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871rxelppv.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 13:31 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 10:00 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On 8/15/19 9:44 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seconded.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But what about my suggestion of adding something like:
> > > >
> > > > { 'union': 'BlockdevAmendOptions',
> > > >
> > > > 'base': {
> > > > 'node-name': 'str' },
> > > >
> > > > 'discriminator': { 'get_block_driver(node-name)' } ,
> > >
> > > Not worth it. It makes the QAPI generator more complex (to invoke
> > > arbitrary code instead of a fixed name) just to avoid a little bit of
> > > complexity in the caller (which is assumed to be a computer, and thus
> > > shouldn't have a hard time providing a sane 'driver' unconditionally).
> > > An HMP wrapper around the QMP command can do whatever magic it needs to
> > > omit driver, but making driver mandatory for QMP is just fine.
> >
> > All right! I kind of not agree with that, since I think even though QMP is a machine language,
> > it still should be consistent since humans still use it, even if this is humans that code some
> > tool that use it.
> >
> > I won't argue with you though, let it be like that.
>
> Software's fundamental limit is complexity. We need to pick what we use
> it for. Sometimes, that means saying no to things that would be nice to
> have.
I fully agree with that and that is usually the exact reason I argue about such things:
Sometimes avoiding complexity in one place, and/or breaking consistency can introduce complexity in other place (like libvirt).
In this particular case, I won't argue about this, but still it kind of feels like
it is a precedent of requiring the user to supply redundant data.
Of all issues all of you pointed out (thanks!!) this is probably the least important one that I should be arguing about,
so let it be like you say.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-21 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-14 20:22 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] RFC: luks/encrypted qcow2 key management Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/13] block-crypto: misc refactoring Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 16:38 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-22 0:05 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 14:34 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-22 15:04 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-21 15:39 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 0:08 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: " Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-15 21:40 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " John Snow
2019-08-19 14:21 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 11:04 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:10 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 11:13 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 17:36 ` [Qemu-devel] " Max Reitz
2019-08-21 23:59 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 14:32 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-25 10:46 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/13] qcrypto-luks: refactoring: extract load/store/check/parse header functions Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 18:01 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-21 22:43 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 10:57 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:34 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 14:11 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:38 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 14:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/13] qcrypto-luks: refactoring: simplify the math used for keyslot locations Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:47 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 14:30 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/13] qcrypto-luks: clear the masterkey and password before freeing them always Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 18:12 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-21 22:40 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 10:49 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 10:56 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-25 15:31 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-25 17:15 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-27 8:55 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-21 23:01 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " Nir Soffer
2019-08-21 23:11 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/13] qcrypto-luks: implement more rigorous header checking Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:04 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 15:40 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-25 16:08 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-26 13:31 ` Eric Blake
2019-08-26 13:39 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-27 8:56 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/13] block: add manage-encryption command (qmp and blockdev) Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 18:27 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-21 22:32 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:14 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-21 11:47 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-21 22:24 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 14:07 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-25 16:42 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/13] qcrypto: add the plumbing for encryption management Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:16 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 11:47 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:49 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/13] qcrypto-luks: implement the encryption key management Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 17:01 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/13] block/crypto: " Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 11:36 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 11/13] block/qcow2: implement the encryption key managment Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 12/13] qemu-img: implement key management Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-20 18:29 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-21 22:33 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-22 14:42 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-25 17:04 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 20:22 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/13] iotests : add tests for encryption " Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-14 21:08 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] RFC: luks/encrypted qcow2 " Eric Blake
2019-08-15 8:49 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-15 9:10 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-08-15 14:18 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-15 14:44 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-15 15:00 ` Eric Blake
2019-08-19 12:35 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-21 11:31 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-21 13:22 ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2019-08-20 17:59 ` Max Reitz
2019-08-21 22:00 ` Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-22 11:35 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-08-25 17:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5f42137c5b25a493f4614a89a13b33cab5e9309f.camel@redhat.com \
--to=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=fam@euphon.net \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).