[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Allow hibernation on guests



On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:54:56 -0600
Anthony Liguori <anthony codemonkey ws> wrote:

> On 01/30/2012 06:57 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:57:01 -0600
> > Anthony Liguori<anthony codemonkey ws>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/26/2012 01:35 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:18:03 -0700
> >>> Eric Blake<eblake redhat com>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [adding qemu-devel]
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/26/2012 07:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>>>> One thing, that you'll probably notice is this
> >>>>>> 'set-support-level' command. Basically, it tells GA what qemu version
> >>>>>> is it running on. Ideally, this should be done as soon as
> >>>>>> GA starts up. However, that cannot be determined from outside
> >>>>>> world as GA doesn't emit any events yet.
> >>>>>> Ideally^2 this command should be left out as it should be qemu
> >>>>>> who tells its own agent this kind of information.
> >>>>>> Anyway, I was going to call this command in qemuProcess{Startup,
> >>>>>> Reconnect,Attach}, but it won't work. We need to un-pause guest CPUs
> >>>>>> so guest can boot and start GA, but that implies returning from qemuProcess*.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So I am setting this just before 'guest-suspend' command, as
> >>>>>> there is one more thing about GA. It is unable to remember anything
> >>>>>> upon its restart (GA process). Which has BTW show flaw
> >>>>>> in our current code with FS freeze&   thaw. If we freeze guest
> >>>>>> FS, and somebody restart GA, the simple FS Thaw will not succeed as
> >>>>>> GA thinks FS are not frozen. But that's a different cup of tea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because of what written above, we need to call set-level
> >>>>>> on every suspend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO all this says that the 'set-level' command is a conceptually
> >>>>> unfixably broken design&   should be killed in QEMU before it turns
> >>>>> into an even bigger mess.
> >>>
> >>> Can you elaborate on this? Michal and I talked on irc about making the
> >>> compatibility level persistent, would that help?
> >>>
> >>>>> Once we're in a situation where we need to call 'set-level' prior
> >>>>> to every single invocation, you might as well just allow the QEMU
> >>>>> version number to be passed in directly as an arg to the command
> >>>>> you are running directly thus avoiding this horrificness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Qemu folks, would you care to chime in on this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly how is the set-level command supposed to work?  As I understand
> >>>> it, the goal is that if the guest has qemu-ga 1.1 installed, but is
> >>>> being run by qemu 1.0, then we want to ensure that any guest agent
> >>>> command supported by qemu-ga 1.1 but requiring features of qemu not
> >>>> present in qemu 1.0 will be properly rejected.
> >>>
> >>> Not exactly, the default support of qemu-ga is qemu 1.0. This means that by
> >>> default qemu-ga will only support qemu 1.0 even when running on qemu 2.0. This
> >>> way the set-support-level command allows you to specify that qemu 2.0 features
> >>> are supported.
> >>
> >> Version numbers are meaningless.  What happens when a bunch of features get
> >> backported by RHEL such that qemu-ga 1.0 ends up being a frankenstein version of
> >> 2.0?
> >>
> >> The feature negotiation mechanism we have in QMP is the existence of a command.
> >>    If we're in a position where we're trying to disable part of a command, it
> >> simply means that we should have multiple commands such that we can just remove
> >> the disabled part entirely.
> >
> > You may have a point that we shouldn't be using the version number for that,
> > but just switching to multiple commands doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
> >
> > The fundamental problem is that, S3 in current (and old) qemu has two known bugs:
> >
> >   1. The screen is left black after S3 (it's a bug in seabios)
> >   2. QEMU resumes the guest immediately (Gerd posted patches to address this)
> >
> > We're going to address both issues in 1.1. However, if qemu-ga is installed in
> > an old qemu and S3 is used, the bugs will be triggered.
> 
> It's a management tool problem.
> 
> Before a management tool issues a command, it should query the existence of the 
> command to determine whether this version of QEMU has that capability.  If the 
> tool needs to use two commands, it should query the existence of both of them.
> 
> In this case, the management tool needs a qemu-ga command *and* a QEMU command 
> (to resume from suspend) so it should query both of them.
> 
> Obviously, we wouldn't have a resume-from-suspend command in QEMU unless it S3 
> worked in QEMU as expected.

That's right, it's a coincidence, but I don't see why this wouldn't work.

I think we should do the following then:

 1. Drop the set-support-level command
 2. Split the guest-suspend command into guest-suspend-ram, guest-suspend-hybrid,
    guest-suspend-disk
 3. Libvirt should query for _QEMU_'s 'wakeup' command before issuing
    the guest-suspend-ram command

Michal, Michael, do you agree?

> Alternatively, if there really was no reason to have a resume-from-suspend 
> command, this would be the point where we would add a capabilities command 
> adding the "working-s3" capability.
> 
> But with capabilities, this is a direct QEMU->management tool interaction, not a 
> proxy through the guest agent.
> 
> We shouldn't trust the guest agent and we certainly don't want to rely on the 
> guest agent to avoid sending an improper command to QEMU!  That would be a 
> security issue.

Fair enough, although that makes me wonder if the planned feature of pulling
qemu-ga's commands into the QMP namespace won't have similar security issues.

> 
> >
> > We need a way for qemu-ga to query qemu about the existence of a working S3
> > support. The set-support-level solves that.
> 
> qemu-ga is not an entry point for QEMU features.  It's strictly a mechanism to 
> ask the guest to do something.  If we need to interact with QEMU directly to 
> query a capability and/or presence of a command, then we should talk to QEMU 
> directly.
> 
> To put it another way, a management tool MUST deal with the fact that when 
> issuing the suspend-to-ram command, a guest may ignore it or attempt to do 
> something malicious.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 
> 
> > Another option would be to disable (or enable) S3 by default in qemu-ga, and let
> > the admin enable (or disable it) according to S3 support being fixed in qemu.
> >
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]