On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 21:48 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> bertagaz@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (27 Jun 2012 11:00:22 GMT) :
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:32:31AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but I think it would make more sense to emulate a USB storage
> >> device in qemu rather than the host kernel.
>
> I do agree.
>
> bertagaz and I have spent a bit more time testing and comparing the
> available options. Our results are summed up there:
> https://tails.boum.org/todo/automated_builds_and_tests/USB/
>
> tl;dr --> as far as Wheezy is concerned:
> * qemu-kvm emulates just fine a USB 2.0 mass storage device, and
> knows how to boot from it; personally, I'd rather use that than
> a dedicated kernel module.
> * with qemu-kvm on the command-line: no need for an additional
> kernel module
> * with a libvirt stack: a missing interface in some abstraction
> layer makes it a pain to use the qemu-kvm USB emulation of
> removable mass storage devices.
>
> We are going to request the missing interface to upstream libvirt,
> but it's unlikely the result thereof is ready in time for Wheezy.
>
> So, with my Tails developer hat, we would be happy to use
> g_mass_storage at least from now to the Wheezy+1 release.
[...]
So you're asking for extra kernel modules to work around a libvirt
deficiency, not even a missing feature in qemu?
I think this is ridiculous.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Lowery's Law:
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part