From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC7BB1FF140 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0A48B37D67; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:34:06 +0100 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Fiona Ebner Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager 5/8] ui: Add CPU flag editor for custom models Message-ID: References: <20260312084021.124465-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260312084021.124465-6-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <8197fbbc-9642-49c0-8a5e-b5ce7208cbba@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8197fbbc-9642-49c0-8a5e-b5ce7208cbba@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774603997401 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.786 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: J5ATDUMR72EYEIAWXLJZCQREND7C6I2O X-Message-ID-Hash: J5ATDUMR72EYEIAWXLJZCQREND7C6I2O X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 04:22:24PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 12.03.26 um 9:40 AM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > > Add CPU flag editor to the CPUTypeEdit component, using the VMCPUFlagSelector > > also used in the VM creation flow. By default, only show the CPU flags that > > are currently meant to be shown in the VM creation window, see [0]. When in > > In the VM Hardware/creation window, I think we should not allow > selecting the accelerator for the flags by the user, but use the > accelerator that the VM currently has configured. With a > hint/description that this is the currently configured one. > Good idea, I will add a `kvm` config property to VMCPUFlagSelector so we can differentiate and show the hint. > Nice work so far from both you and the original author! Thanks :) > > > CPUTypeEdit, show all available flags. > > > > For each flag in VMCPUFlagSelector, also display which node(s) it is available > > on to limit misconfigurations. > > > > ---snip 8<--- > > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > index 74b1a2c4..06c9d9f1 100644 > > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > @@ -1,3 +1,19 @@ > > +const VM_CPU_FLAGS_SUBSET = { > > + aes: true, > > + 'amd-no-ssb': true, > > + 'amd-ssbd': true, > > + 'hv-evmcs': true, > > + 'hv-tlbflush': true, > > + ibpb: true, > > + 'md-clear': true, > > + 'nested-virt': true, > > + pcid: true, > > + pdpe1gb: true, > > + 'spec-ctrl': true, > > + ssbd: true, > > + 'virt-ssbd': true, > > I'd rather not have the list hard-coded here if it can be avoided and > from what we discussed for the qemu-server patches I think it won't be > needed anymore, right? Yea this is ugly & already dropped from v2, I moved everything to the backend when addressing your feedback for the cpu-flags endpoint :)