|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][XEND]Fix checkname so that it detects duplicate
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Keir Fraser
> Sent: 25 May 2007 10:40
> To: Petersson, Mats; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][XEND]Fix checkname so that
> it detects duplicate domains.
>
> On 25/5/07 10:25, "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> If we don't enforce UUID uniqueness, what is the point of
> >> having a UUID?
> >> Also, don't we store some VM information in /vm/<uuid> in
> >> xenstore: how does
> >> that work out if we have multiple domains with the same UUID?
> >
> > All very good points. I don't actually know how this is
> meant to work,
> > I'm just fixing an apparent bug, which is that if the UUID is
> > duplicated, you can have two domains with the same name, which isn't
> > what is supposed to happen. There should probably ALSO be a
> "_checkuuid"
> > function to verify that the UUID is unique. Not sure it's
> my place to
> > fix that, tho'?
>
> Oh. Your patch comment strongly implies that the current
> behaviour of xend
> is to check for UUID uniqueness, and that you are changing
> this to a check
> for name uniqueness. And that looks like what this patch does, too.
>
> But here you seem to be saying that xend enforces neither
> UUID uniqueness
> nor name uniqueness?
That is sort of correct, yes. _IF_ the UUID isn't unique, then the name
also can be duplicated, which doesn't exactly make it any better, right?
I guess there may be a better way to fix this if we know for sure that
UUID's are definitely unique.
--
Mats
>
> -- Keir
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
|
|