Re: [Xen-devel] xl command autocompletion: domain names

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 00:14 +1300, Matthew Daley wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:18 +1300, Matthew Daley wrote:
> >
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I don't necessarily object to setting the process title, it feels a 
> >> >> > bit
> >> >> > 1980s/sendmail-ish to me but that might just be me ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Right.
> >> >
> >> >> Can't say I have 80s UNIX experience ;)
> >> >
> >> > The problem with it from my point of view is that it's very difficult
> >> > to make it reliable.  I don't mind setting the title for the benefit
> >> > of admins, but automatically grepping processes out of ps listings is
> >> > pretty poor and shouldn't be done in bash-completion IMO.
> >>
> >> A quick grep through the existing bash-completion scripts doesn't show
> >> any uses of ps, so that is in your favour. I guess I'll can this idea
> >> for getting the names for now then. The thing is, a completion script
> >> for xl that doesn't handle domain names seems a little pointless...
> >
> > I presume it does handle it if you use "sudo -s" or su and run the
> > commands actually as root? If so then it's not a total waste.
> 
> Which "it" are we talking about here?

"it" is the (perhaps future) bash completion.

>  If you mean a xl bash-completion
> script, well, that's still vapourware right now :) I wanted to try and
> figure something out with these domain names first before diving into
> the script since the script itself should be pretty simple AFAICT.
> 
> Using sudo -s would still have issues, since the completion still runs
> as the unprivileged shell user.

sudo -s opens a root shell....

>  su'ing as root would work fine, but
> one isn't supposed to be sitting in shells as root all day, no?

True.

> > libxl probably leaves some per-domain droppings in /var and such, but I
> > don't think we'd want to expose that.
> 
> Right. The only other idea I've not mentioned yet would be to
> explicitly define a file in /var or wherever which enumerated the
> currently running domains (created by xl), but IMO that's silly
> duplication of information which is just asking for trouble wrt.
> synchronization with reality.

Agreed.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel