1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/118/none/1775366 b/results/classifier/118/none/1775366
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4a01d9132
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/118/none/1775366
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+device: 0.746
+performance: 0.740
+graphic: 0.730
+user-level: 0.726
+ppc: 0.646
+semantic: 0.573
+architecture: 0.554
+network: 0.546
+socket: 0.545
+arm: 0.508
+register: 0.506
+permissions: 0.480
+mistranslation: 0.479
+vnc: 0.423
+assembly: 0.406
+kernel: 0.381
+peripherals: 0.354
+debug: 0.350
+x86: 0.343
+VMM: 0.333
+i386: 0.310
+hypervisor: 0.307
+PID: 0.253
+risc-v: 0.246
+boot: 0.225
+KVM: 0.225
+virtual: 0.222
+TCG: 0.202
+files: 0.127
+
+ [Feature request] qemu-ga - Allow unexpected parameter
+
+It whould be nice if the qemu-ga allowed received messages to contain fields which is not part of the spec. In my example I have a host which sends the following request:
+
+{"execute":"guest-exec","arguments":{"path":"prl_nettool","capture-output":true,"execute-in-shell":false,"arg":[...]}}
+
+Right now this request is rejected with the following error:
+
+{"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Parameter 'execute-in-shell' is unexpected"}}
+
+My situation is the hosting provider I use does have some customized solution which sends some extra arguments. I have manually patched my qemu-ga so it accepts the "execute-in-shell" parameter but I don't think this should be necessary.
+
+Instead of "Error" it should just be a "warning" returned to the user of qemu-ga but the call should still be executed.
+
+This sounds an awful lot like your hosting provider expects you to be using a specialized version of qemu-ga which you are not using.
+
+It is my opinion that it's dangerous for a client to accept partial commands and try to execute them anyway, as those ignored parameters drastically change the semantics of various commands.
+
+We don't know what we don't know, so this doesn't sound safe.
+
+I see you point. Just close this issue.
+
+I agree with John, accepting commands that have not fully been understood is just too dangerous. So closing this as Won't-Fix.
+
+BTW, if you have any friendly contact with the your hosting provider, please encourage them to contribute any enhancements they have back to QEMU. It is highly desirable to *NOT* have hosting providers needing a fork of qemu-ga, as that ruins ability to run standard disk images, as you've found.
+