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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E85BABA525 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BE88F14925 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:06 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE9D847526 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2bcdb6c7-bcff-4e65-8c7d-fbab100d2a6d@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Filip Schauer , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231211141256.27565-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <474c3df6-a8ed-4294-8e46-37c3f2008689@proxmox.com> <544700e6-14ca-4db8-88b4-117202a972d9@proxmox.com> <93b6aa58-fea8-48ba-b007-a08fd02c734a@proxmox.com> <7d2ebfc9-7172-410a-be4c-1fc681d07e43@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <7d2ebfc9-7172-410a-be4c-1fc681d07e43@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.077 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] Properly identify the CPU architecture of 32-bit VMs 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: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:13:07 -0000 Am 13.12.23 um 18:31 schrieb Filip Schauer: > On 12/12/2023 12:48, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 12.12.23 um 11:39 schrieb Filip Schauer: >>> It's actually not a different binary. qemu-system-i386 is a symlink that >>> points to qemu-system-x86_64. But still this does indeed break migration >>> between a node that has this patch applied and another node without the >>> patch. >>> >> Oh, okay. But then that's a bit surprising. From a quick glance, we do >> have some logic matching arch 'x86_64' specifically in CPUConfig.pm, so >> that might be it. E.g.: >> >>>      my $pve_forced_flags = {}; >>>      $pve_forced_flags->{'enforce'} = { >>>          reason => "error if requested CPU settings not available", >>>      } if $cputype ne 'host' && $kvm && $arch eq 'x86_64'; > > > This check does not make any difference in my case since $kvm is not set > when using a qemu32 CPU. > Well, that is just one example for such a flag, there are others ;) >From a quick look, if kvm is not explicitly turned off in the config and if you are not using arch i386/aarch64 in the config, the $kvm option will get set. It does not seem to depend on the CPU type: > sub is_native($) { > my ($arch) = @_; > return get_host_arch() eq $arch; > } > > sub get_vm_arch { > my ($conf) = @_; > return $conf->{arch} // get_host_arch(); > } > sub config_to_command { ... > my $kvm = $conf->{kvm}; > my $nodename = nodename(); > > my $arch = get_vm_arch($conf); ... > $kvm //= 1 if is_native($arch); If you really want to know what causes the issue, you can compare the QEMU commandline on source and target of the migration.