On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 12:54 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > If an application breaks based on the USB controller being either
> > present or not present, then they shouldn't be relying on libvirt's
> > default but rather explicitly opt either in or out.
>
> It is not merely the mgmt application that may break, but the
> guest OS inside too. When we suddenly expose new hardware to a
> guest that was not previously present you can certainly trigger
> latent problems in the guest OS. It could slow boot at a key
> phase, or trigger loading of bad drivers, or any number of other
> things that can occurr when you change hardware visible to an OS.
Note that I'm not advocating adding controllers or any other
hardware to *existing* guests - that would clearly be a guest ABI
breakage and thus Extremely Bad™. For newly-defined guests, however,
none of the above applies AFAICT.
There's no practical way to distinguish an existing guest from a
new guest being provisioned. With transient domains they are one &
the same. Even with persistent guests the distinction is far from
clear.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|