Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] tools/libxl: Allow dom0 to be destroyed

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel De Graaf writes ("Re: [PATCH 5/6] tools/libxl: Allow dom0 to be 
destroyed"):
> In reply to both this and Jan's earlier email:
> > So this gets deleted without replacement? How is the hardware
> > domain being protected from (accidental or malicious) deletion
> > then? Even if this is being dealt with in the hypervisor, I'd be
> > afraid of the failure resulting in a cryptic error message instead
> > of the very clear one above.
> 
> The existing check seems to be a useful guard against accidentally
> breaking parts of a running system.  Would requiring a -f flag on the
> destroy operation to work on domain 0 be preferable?

That would be tolerable if we can't find a better way to tell whether
it's safe or not.

I guess you don't want dom0 to be able to destroy itself - or do you ?
Perhaps the right answer is to require -f for a domain to destroy
itself.

ian.

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