)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"c4f6aefc55bb83bb6b9afc68ce4596f604615e00","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":19,"context_line":"This is because it makes it obvious at the caller that a priviledged"},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"operation is occuring:"},{"line_number":21,"context_line":""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"    nova.privsep.libvirt.destroy_root_filesystem()"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"Not just:"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"5fc1f717_86d89cf0","line":22,"range":{"start_line":22,"start_character":4,"end_line":22,"end_character":50},"updated":"2019-04-01 22:52:52.000000000","message":"so i think this is a symtom of an anti paterren we use for privsep function in nova.\n\nwe have created a nova.privsep module instead of keeping\nprivladged function in the same module as the module that uses them.\n\nthere are two parts of this anti pattern.\nfirst centralising them encurages generic privladged functions that everything dispatch too instead of narrowly scoped privaladge functions that are defined and used locally in the module that requires them\n\nsecond by having privileged in the module path instead of in the function name we need a hacking rule like this.\n\nif the function was called destory_root_filesystem_privileged you would know your screwed and would not call it.\n\nso if we most the ok but i think we should not have a nova.privsep module at all.","commit_id":"36cb07b0b9e381117d88a5d329ca6ed4b81ece1f"}]}