From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 E2BB19A2F9 for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 11:09:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C818825971 for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 11:08:37 +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 ; Wed, 17 May 2023 11:08:37 +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 B92A445431; Wed, 17 May 2023 11:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <26e8f366-da72-d3a7-ed62-f25ff4b78764@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 11:08:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20230517070246.660939-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230517070246.660939-3-aderumier@odiso.com> <683002e1-e5ac-6eb4-01df-d2f6fae2a1e2@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.285 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 -2.666 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-qemu 1/1] patch: add 0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:09:07 -0000 Am 17.05.23 um 10:25 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: > Le mercredi 17 mai 2023 à 09:46 +0200, Fiona Ebner a écrit : >> Am 17.05.23 um 09:02 schrieb Alexandre Derumier: >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier >>> --- >>>  .../pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch  | 272 >>> ++++++++++++++++++ >>>  debian/patches/series                         |   1 + >>>  2 files changed, 273 insertions(+) >>>  create mode 100644 debian/patches/pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64- >>> abi.patch >>> >> >> Do we really need this? Can't we just define these as custom CPU >> models >> in qemu-server? I'd really prefer to not pick up such patches if not >> necessary. Ideally, we reduce divergence from upstream QEMU rather >> than >> increase it.  > yes sure we can do it in qemu-server, with simply setting flags in > command line. > > It was more by security to not forgot a cpu flag. > > >> Since the patch was never applied, what other solution did >> upstream or libvirt go for? > The end of the discussion was that it could be done userland > like qemu-server ;) Yes, let's just introduce a custom CPU model there, which will be the new UI default. > I'll rework the patch series. > > (BTW, what do you think about bumping the default model ? is it ok for > you ?) > Yes, I do think it should be done, because most currently in-use CPUs should be fine with x86-64-abi2 and it's not nice to users if the defaults don't work out-of-the-box[0]. And other people can just select kvm64. Changing the default in the UI for new VMs should not lead to any breakage and your series does just that. Still, something we'll want to mention in the PVE 8 release notes to not catch people off guard. [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/kernel-panic-when-creating-vms-centos-9-stream-iso.104656/