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 0EFBB95F4 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:48:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E5D19E573 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:48:13 +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 ; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:48:12 +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 E9E2D41022; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:48:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9468de6a-cbd8-9944-ae02-c064439dd66b@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:48:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20230619072841.38531-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230619072841.38531-5-aderumier@odiso.com> <809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com> <3e337e38-1a91-8b41-c03c-1f89c8885df7@proxmox.com> <43d759a21681a2bdf8454435d7a8d6a62da0b124.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <93a80e5b-9851-471f-84b6-0adc79c4d7d0@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <93a80e5b-9851-471f-84b6-0adc79c4d7d0@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.657 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 -1.473 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: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 11:48:14 -0000 Am 04.09.23 um 13:40 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 02/09/2023 um 08:18 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: >> Le vendredi 01 septembre 2023 à 12:24 +0200, Fiona Ebner a écrit : >>> 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. >>>> >> I was not think about max size as a security feature, but more to >> define the min dimm size to reach this max value. > > Hmm, then I'd might it easier to understand if this is named "DIMM Size" > or "Minimal DIMM-Size", for the UI we could show the resulting max-memory > that one can achieve with each DIMM-Size selected. > > The range could be from 128 MB to 64 GB (or higher?), and yeah if we have > an actual maximum we could also auto-calculate it, if not set explicitly > by the user. > > But, I'm currently not to deep into this topic, so take my suggestions > with a grain of salt. The advantage with 'max' is that it can be used for both, hotplug with dimms and virtio-mem. Otherwise, we'd need two different sub-options depending on hotplug method.