search for: msg00120

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 22:56:25 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Not that I'm opposed to this patch, but there's a bit of history here: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2012-December/msg00120.html Hm it doesn't say much more about that though, and the solution I implemented is even less strict than what Dan suggested back then. > I think it would be good for libvirt to address the "is remote" issue, > which libvirt is (in theory) in the best place to address, eg by...

...+0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 22:56:25 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > Not that I'm opposed to this patch, but there's a bit of history here: > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2012-December/msg00120.html > > > > Hm it doesn't say much more about that though, and the solution I > > implemented is even less strict than what Dan suggested back then. > > > > > I think it would be good for libvirt to address the "is remote" issue, > > > whic...

Not that I'm opposed to this patch, but there's a bit of history here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2012-December/msg00120.html I think it would be good for libvirt to address the "is remote" issue, which libvirt is (in theory) in the best place to address, eg by comparing systemd /etc/machine-id on both systems. Then we could use that to deny remote URIs, but probably we wouldn't want to deny it comple...

...n 28, 2017 at 10:33:48AM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 22:56:25 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > Not that I'm opposed to this patch, but there's a bit of history here: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2012-December/msg00120.html > > Hm it doesn't say much more about that though, and the solution I > implemented is even less strict than what Dan suggested back then. > > > I think it would be good for libvirt to address the "is remote" issue, > > which libvirt is (in theory) in th...

...virtual and non-virtual, the more I can get to run off my existing pxeboot infrastructure, the better off I am. I have seen discussions about doing this with HVM domains, but not with paravirtualized domains. am I missing something? [1]http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2007-02/msg00120.html [2]https://www.cs.tcd.ie/Stephen.Childs/pypxeboot/ _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Please pick up Tristan Gingold''s patch referenced below. The 2nd and 3rd parts build on top of it. http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-09/msg00120.html Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=703586 Ideas how to move this forward? Debugging techniques? I''m guessing that it''s specific to my hardware, since I''m not seeing anyone else complaining. Anyone else succeed in doing this on an EliteBook?

If the connection is not local, paths of disks will refer to the remote host, which were mistakenly handled as local paths (in the best case failing to open a non-existing disk, and in the worst case opening a different disk!). In case the disks are remote resources like ssh or ceph, nothing guarantees that the hostname can be reached from the local machine, or even that it is actually the same on