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 13CBF8E18 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F06A51444A for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +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 3F3CC47D37; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3e337e38-1a91-8b41-c03c-1f89c8885df7@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht , Alexandre Derumier References: <20230619072841.38531-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230619072841.38531-5-aderumier@odiso.com> <809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.662 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 -3.478 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 10:24:36 -0000 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. > >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. For virtio-mem, we have one device per socket (up to 8, assuming a power of 2), and the blocksize is 2 MiB, so we could have 16 MiB granularity. Or is there an issue setting the 'size' for a virtio-mem-pci device to such a fine grained value? Even if there is, we can just create the device with a bigger supported 'size' and have our API reject a request to go beyond the maximum later.