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 7EE9D1FF141 for ; Tue, 19 May 2026 10:17:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 18EA6340C8; Tue, 19 May 2026 10:17:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 10:17:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server] cpu models: only include custom models on x86_64 From: Fiona Ebner To: Arthur Bied-Charreton , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260519075109.156258-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <51a4715d-b615-4537-ab82-36eeca18345e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <51a4715d-b615-4537-ab82-36eeca18345e@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779178655868 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.009 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 Message-ID-Hash: 4IXYBV2EWPQKOOTUFA6V4EZOIYZ4GVAM X-Message-ID-Hash: 4IXYBV2EWPQKOOTUFA6V4EZOIYZ4GVAM 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 19.05.26 um 10:13 AM schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 19.05.26 um 9:51 AM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: >> The custom CPU models config does not currently expose a way to specify >> an arch and it defaults to x86_64. >> > > This is not true? It implicitly defaults to the arch of the base model > (i.e. reported-model) and custom models for aarch64 can be created and > used just fine. Just not created via UI. > Also, if the host itself is ARM, then they can also be created via UI, right? > >> Only include custom models if $arch is set to x86_64 to prevent listing >> x86_64-only custom models in the CPU model selector for arm VMs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > > We should rather filter out the models where the base model does not fit > the arch. > > > >