From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28BC19617
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 072BADC46
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7FA1B40C5E;
Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5ee93d17-7a0c-2243-ca7f-1d5cfe6c2718@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:48:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.15.0
To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>,
"pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
"t.lamprecht@proxmox.com" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
"aderumier@odiso.com" <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20230619072841.38531-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
<20230619072841.38531-5-aderumier@odiso.com>
<809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com>
<3e337e38-1a91-8b41-c03c-1f89c8885df7@proxmox.com>
<43d759a21681a2bdf8454435d7a8d6a62da0b124.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <43d759a21681a2bdf8454435d7a8d6a62da0b124.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.657 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-manager 2/2] ui: qemu : memoryedit:
add new max && virtio fields
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 10:48:56 -0000
Am 02.09.23 um 08:18 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre:
> Le vendredi 01 septembre 2023 à 12:24 +0200, Fiona Ebner a écrit :
>> Am 01.09.23 um 11:48 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
>>> Am 19/06/2023 um 09:28 schrieb Alexandre Derumier:
>>>> + xtype: 'pveMemoryField',
>>>> + name: 'max',
>>>> + minValue: 65536,
>>>> + maxValue: 4194304,
>>>> + value: '',
>>>> + step: 65536,
>>>> + fieldLabel: gettext('Maximum memory') + ' (MiB)',
>>>
>>> This huge step size will be confusing to users, there should be a
>>> way to have
>>> smaller steps (e.g., 1 GiB or even 128 MiB).
>>>
>>> As even nowadays, with a huge amount of installed memory on a lot
>>> of servers,
>>> deciding that a (potentially bad actor) VM can use up 64G or 128G
>>> is still
>>> quite the difference on a lot of setups. Fiona is checking the
>>> backend here
>>> to see if it might be done with a finer granularity, or what other
>>> options
>>> we have here.
>>>
>
> I was not think about max size as a security feature, but more to
> define the min dimm size to reach this max value.
> But indeed, it could be interesting.
>
Permission-wise there would need to be a difference between changing
'current' and changing 'max', but I'd say that's something for later.
>> From a first glance, I think it should be possible. Even if we keep
>> the
>> restriction "all memory devices should have the same size", which
>> makes
>> the code easier:
>>
>> For dimms, we have 64 slots, so I don't see a reason why we can't use
>> 64
>> MiB granularity rather than 64 GiB.
>>
>>
>
> Note that I think we shouldn't go under 128Mib for dimmsize as it's the
> minimum hotplug granularity on linux
>
> https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.html
> "Memory Hot(Un)Plug Granularity
> Memory hot(un)plug in Linux uses the SPARSEMEM memory model, which
> divides the physical memory address space into chunks of the same size:
> memory sections. The size of a memory section is architecture
> dependent. For example, x86_64 uses 128 MiB and ppc64 uses 16 MiB."
>
Okay, I see. Then let's go with the "create with support for more
initially and have API deny requests bigger than max"-approach.
> Static mem is already setup at 4GB, so I really don't known if we want
> 128mib dimm size in 2023 ?
>
> I'm really don't have tested windows and other OS under 1 gbit dimm
> size.
>
The current implementation starts out with adding 512 MiB-sized dimms,
so at least those should be fine.