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 54EF31FF13F for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:09:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D69B38A; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:09:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3ca99b13-c357-41e1-9380-4a82534219f6@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:09:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 06/10] ui: qemu: make os type selector architecture aware To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20260128123035.2576774-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260128123035.2576774-7-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <996532ce-e7b6-4221-addc-ccddeb71374f@proxmox.com> <1f10f299-b792-4cca-b83f-fbd8c56870ce@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <1f10f299-b792-4cca-b83f-fbd8c56870ce@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1769688491824 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.015 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: DJXHK5FDCM4WG35LXUNDSU6YAIYL44ZA X-Message-ID-Hash: DJXHK5FDCM4WG35LXUNDSU6YAIYL44ZA X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 29.01.26 um 10:46 AM schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 1/29/26 10:40 AM, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 28.01.26 um 1:30 PM schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> diff --git a/www/manager6/Utils.js b/www/manager6/Utils.js >>> index d8b212bc..de1ee0ba 100644 >>> --- a/www/manager6/Utils.js >>> +++ b/www/manager6/Utils.js >>> @@ -63,6 +63,17 @@ Ext.define('PVE.Utils', { >>>               Other: [{ desc: '-', val: 'other' }], >>>           }, >>>   +        kvmOSTypesPerArchitecture: { >>> +            x86_64: { >>> +                bases: undefined, // include all >>> +                ostypes: undefined, // include all >>> +            }, >>> +            aarch64: { >>> +                bases: ['Linux', 'Other'], >>> +                ostypes: ['l26', 'other'], >> >> What about Windows? Do we really want to hide that compeletely in the >> UI? Unfortunately [;P], I expect that to be a non-negligible use case >> and many requests to come in (which will miss that it's available on the >> CLI). Or is it not properly supported in the backend? If yes, that >> should be fixed, note that I have sent a patch at least for the >> unavailable hyperv flags [0]. I mean, we can also wait and see if I'm >> right. Maybe people don't care about it as much on ARM, I'd be glad ;) >> >> [0]: >> https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20260127134626.127432-3- >> f.ebner@proxmox.com/ >> > > yeah, sorry should have expanded on the why here a bit: > > yes, there are a few things in the backend still missing for windows arm > support, namely: > * display: the only device i could get windows to show anything was 'ramfb' > * iso/storage: since aarch64 does not support ide (at least in my tests > i couldn't get it to work, maybe there is a way), we have to use a > different bus for the iso/cdrom drives. virtio-scsi works theoretically, > but the windows installer stops at some point because the drivers are > missing. OVMF can't boot from other scsi controllers or sata. > > so the only other way would be to implement usb-storage support, but > that's not here yet > > so all in all i opted to hide windows for the moment because one cannot > make it work with the current options anyway Seems like there are virtio-win drivers for win11: https://virtio-win.github.io/Knowledge-Base/Windows-arm64-vm-using-qemu.html But also requires going into regedit during installation to disable TPM ;P Yeah, let's just not expose it in the UI for now if there is no first-class support for it yet.