2:44 p.m.
These patches introduce 'mshv' hypervisor type and check for the hypervisor
device on host while starting ch guests.
Praveen K Paladugu (2):
conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
ch: Check for hypervisor while starting guests
src/ch/ch_conf.c | 2 ++
src/ch/ch_driver.c | 7 +++++++
src/ch/ch_process.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 1 +
src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 1 +
6 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
--
2.43.0
2:44 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
This hypervisor type is available on a host running Microsoft Hypervisor
and Linux as the Dom0. The Dom0 should load "mshv" drivers to expose the
hypervisor device to userspace.
Cloud-Hypervisor supports running guests on Linux Hosts with mshv as the
hypervisor.
Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal(a)linux.microsoft.com>
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 1 +
src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 1 +
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
index fb5a5cc351..d0b33e97e6 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainVirt,
"test",
"vmware",
"hyperv",
+ "mshv",
"vbox",
"phyp",
"parallels",
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.h b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
index bd283d42df..128b058161 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.h
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ typedef enum {
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV,
+ VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS,
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index 31d42495f4..af38ade0c0 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -7184,6 +7184,7 @@ qemuBuildAccelCommandLine(virCommand *cmd,
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV:
+ case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS:
--
2.43.0
3:55 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 02:44:40PM -0600, Praveen K Paladugu wrote:
This hypervisor type is available on a host running Microsoft
Hypervisor
and Linux as the Dom0. The Dom0 should load "mshv" drivers to expose the
hypervisor device to userspace.
Cloud-Hypervisor supports running guests on Linux Hosts with mshv as the
hypervisor.
This is my first time hearing about the Microsoft Hypervisor with Linux
Dom0, and the docs I find via Google aren't entirely conclusive.
Am I right in thinking that "Microsoft Hypervisor" in this context is
simply Hyper-V, aka, the same hypervisor you traditionally have under
a Windows Dom0 ?
If so then I could think that we probably don't need to have a new
virDomainVirt type enum entry. We could simply use the pre-existing
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV to represent this configuration in the
cloud-hypervisor configuration.
Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal(a)linux.microsoft.com>
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 1 +
src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 1 +
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
index fb5a5cc351..d0b33e97e6 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainVirt,
"test",
"vmware",
"hyperv",
+ "mshv",
"vbox",
"phyp",
"parallels",
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.h b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
index bd283d42df..128b058161 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.h
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ typedef enum {
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV,
+ VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS,
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
index 31d42495f4..af38ade0c0 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
@@ -7184,6 +7184,7 @@ qemuBuildAccelCommandLine(virCommand *cmd,
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV:
+ case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP:
case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS:
--
2.43.0
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
With 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 :|
2:49 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:55:29AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 02:44:40PM -0600, Praveen K Paladugu wrote:
> This hypervisor type is available on a host running Microsoft Hypervisor
> and Linux as the Dom0. The Dom0 should load "mshv" drivers to expose the
> hypervisor device to userspace.
>
> Cloud-Hypervisor supports running guests on Linux Hosts with mshv as the
> hypervisor.
This is my first time hearing about the Microsoft Hypervisor with Linux
Dom0, and the docs I find via Google aren't entirely conclusive.
Unfortunately, Microsoft does not have any official documentation on this
configuration, because Linux Dom0 on Microsoft Hypervisor is not yet ready
for broader adoption. We still need to sort out Licensing and other
questions related to this configuration before it can be made public.
That said, we have been working with cloud-hypervisor for a while now to
enable mshv as the supported hypervisor in addition to kvm.
Am I right in thinking that "Microsoft Hypervisor" in this context is
simply Hyper-V, aka, the same hypervisor you traditionally have under
a Windows Dom0 ?
If so then I could think that we probably don't need to have a new
virDomainVirt type enum entry. We could simply use the pre-existing
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV to represent this configuration in the
cloud-hypervisor configuration.
I considered reusing VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV entry. From what I
understand, this hypervisor option implies Libvirt talks to HyperV using
WMI. Although the binary bits of the hypervisors may be the same in both
configurations, the interfaces to interact with the hypervisors are
completely different.
With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt doesn't interact
with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes cloud-hypervisor which in
turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
As how libvirt starts guests in these 2 configurations is totally
different, I thought it would be better to add a hypervisor type to
track this configuration.
Regards,
Praveen
> > Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal(a)linux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 1 +
> > src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
> > src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > index fb5a5cc351..d0b33e97e6 100644
> > --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainVirt,
> > "test",
> > "vmware",
> > "hyperv",
> > + "mshv",
> > "vbox",
> > "phyp",
> > "parallels",
> > diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.h b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
> > index bd283d42df..128b058161 100644
> > --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.h
> > +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.h
> > @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ typedef enum {
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST,
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE,
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV,
> > + VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV,
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX,
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP,
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS,
> > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> > index 31d42495f4..af38ade0c0 100644
> > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c
> > @@ -7184,6 +7184,7 @@ qemuBuildAccelCommandLine(virCommand *cmd,
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_TEST:
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VMWARE:
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV:
> > + case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV:
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_VBOX:
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PHYP:
> > case VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_PARALLELS:
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
>
> With 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 :|
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
2:57 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:49:50PM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that "Microsoft Hypervisor" in
this context is
> simply Hyper-V, aka, the same hypervisor you traditionally have under
> a Windows Dom0 ?
>
> If so then I could think that we probably don't need to have a new
> virDomainVirt type enum entry. We could simply use the pre-existing
> VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV to represent this configuration in the
> cloud-hypervisor configuration.
>
I considered reusing VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV entry. From what I
understand, this hypervisor option implies Libvirt talks to HyperV using
WMI. Although the binary bits of the hypervisors may be the same in both
configurations, the interfaces to interact with the hypervisors are
completely different.
In the context of libvirt XML config, the virDomainVirt enum is very
specifically referring to the underlying hypervisor guest ABI. This
is distinct from any protocol used for the management of the platform
by libvirt.
This is why both the CloudHypervisor and QEMU drivers in libvirt
will both support the VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM for guests, despite
being completely different mgmt APIs.
Similarly in the past we have have multiple drivers all
use VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_XEN for the guest, while using
completely different mgmt APIs.
So if "mshv" in the context of CloudHypervisor is running
HyperV under Dom0 and the guest primarily needs to support
the HyperV ABI, then I would say VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV
could be the appropriate choice.
With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt
doesn't interact
with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes cloud-hypervisor which in
turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
With 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 :|
10:12 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:49:50PM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> > Am I right in thinking that "Microsoft Hypervisor" in this context
is
> > simply Hyper-V, aka, the same hypervisor you traditionally have under
> > a Windows Dom0 ?
> >
> > If so then I could think that we probably don't need to have a new
> > virDomainVirt type enum entry. We could simply use the pre-existing
> > VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV to represent this configuration in the
> > cloud-hypervisor configuration.
> >
>
> I considered reusing VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV entry. From what I
> understand, this hypervisor option implies Libvirt talks to HyperV using
> WMI. Although the binary bits of the hypervisors may be the same in both
> configurations, the interfaces to interact with the hypervisors are
> completely different.
In the context of libvirt XML config, the virDomainVirt enum is very
specifically referring to the underlying hypervisor guest ABI. This
is distinct from any protocol used for the management of the platform
by libvirt.
This is why both the CloudHypervisor and QEMU drivers in libvirt
will both support the VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM for guests, despite
being completely different mgmt APIs.
Similarly in the past we have have multiple drivers all
use VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_XEN for the guest, while using
completely different mgmt APIs.
So if "mshv" in the context of CloudHypervisor is running
HyperV under Dom0 and the guest primarily needs to support
the HyperV ABI, then I would say VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV
could be the appropriate choice.
> With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt doesn't
interact
> with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes cloud-hypervisor which in
> turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are referring to
the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs available
in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations are completely
different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems: Windows and
Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to start and
manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are different in
these 2 configurations.
Above, you called out CloudHypervisor and Qemu drivers in libvirt
supporting VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM. This makes sense to me. In these 2
configruations, both the VMMs (CloudHypervisor, Qemu) use the
same/simiar set of interfaces provided by the kernel and hypervisor(KVM) to
manage guests. Unfortunately, this isn't the case with
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV and VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV types.
With VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV and VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV, as different
hypervisor types, checks on the hosts will be simpler, as each of these types
would imply a host OS.
Regards,
Praveen
>
> With 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 :|
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
10:57 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:12:15AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt doesn't
interact
> > with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes cloud-hypervisor which
in
> > turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
>
> That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
> by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
> is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
>
Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are referring to
the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs available
in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations are completely
different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems: Windows and
Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to start and
manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are different in
these 2 configurations.
By 'hypervisor guest ABI' I'm referring to the general virtualization
ABI that the hypervisor exposes to guest OS.
ie the functionality that a Linux guest enables with CONFIG_HYPERV,
or with CONFIG_KVM Kconfig build options.
IIUC, there is no new CONFIG_MSHV in Linux guests, and they would
be expected to be built with CONFIG_HYPERV enabled, or am I wrong
in that respect ?
With 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 :|
1:15 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:12:15AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > > With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt
doesn't interact
> > > with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes cloud-hypervisor
which in
> > > turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
> >
> > That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
> > by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
> > is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
> >
>
> Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
> By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are referring to
> the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs available
> in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations are
completely
> different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems: Windows and
> Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to start and
> manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are different in
> these 2 configurations.
By 'hypervisor guest ABI' I'm referring to the general virtualization
ABI that the hypervisor exposes to guest OS.
ie the functionality that a Linux guest enables with CONFIG_HYPERV,
or with CONFIG_KVM Kconfig build options.
IIUC, there is no new CONFIG_MSHV in Linux guests, and they would
be expected to be built with CONFIG_HYPERV enabled, or am I wrong
in that respect ?
You are correct Daniel. The guest needs CONFIG_HYPERV and a few other HYPERV_*
configs enabled. The host on the other hand needs CONFIG_MSHV_ROOT enabled.
Regards,
Praveen
>
> With 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 :|
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
10:38 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:15:21AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:12:15AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > > > With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt
doesn't interact
> > > > with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes
cloud-hypervisor which in
> > > > turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
> > >
> > > That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
> > > by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
> > > is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
> > By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are referring
to
> > the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs
available
> > in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations are
completely
> > different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems: Windows and
> > Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to start and
> > manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are different in
> > these 2 configurations.
>
> By 'hypervisor guest ABI' I'm referring to the general virtualization
> ABI that the hypervisor exposes to guest OS.
>
> ie the functionality that a Linux guest enables with CONFIG_HYPERV,
> or with CONFIG_KVM Kconfig build options.
>
> IIUC, there is no new CONFIG_MSHV in Linux guests, and they would
> be expected to be built with CONFIG_HYPERV enabled, or am I wrong
> in that respect ?
>
You are correct Daniel. The guest needs CONFIG_HYPERV and a few other HYPERV_*
configs enabled. The host on the other hand needs CONFIG_MSHV_ROOT enabled.
Regards,
Praveen
I understand your recommendation now Daniel. By assigning a hypervisor
type based on 'hypervisor guest ABI', users will be able move 'Domain XML'
with
corresponding guest images across hosts that expose the same hypervisor
guest ABI, irrespective of what the underlying OS is. Such a setting
would potentially also allow Live Migration of guests across platforms
supporting the same hypervisor guest ABI.
In this particular case though, CONFIG_HYPERV is only part of the story. In
order for guests to run on top of Hyperv, they usually need
CONFIG_HYPERV_{STORAGE,NET} and other drivers.
The guests running in Mshv need virtio drivers. This is because the
underlying VMMs in these cases: Hyperv, Cloud-Hypervisor expose
different sets of paravirtualized devices to guests. Although the core
hypervisor guest ABI is the same in both cases, guests will not be able to
move across 'Hyperv' and 'mshv' configs seemlessly.
It is less likely for these two VMMs to converge on a common set of
paravirtualized and emulated devices to allow seamless migration of
guests between Hyperv and Mshv configs. Do you still see value in
converging both these configs under the hypervisor type,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV?
Regards,
Praveen
> >
> > With 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 :|
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
9:20 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:38:42AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:15:21AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:12:15AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > > > > With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option, Libvirt
doesn't interact
> > > > > with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes
cloud-hypervisor which in
> > > > > turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
> > > >
> > > > That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is represented
> > > > by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
> > > > is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is exposed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
> > > By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are
referring to
> > > the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs
available
> > > in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations are
completely
> > > different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems: Windows
and
> > > Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to start
and
> > > manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are different in
> > > these 2 configurations.
> >
> > By 'hypervisor guest ABI' I'm referring to the general
virtualization
> > ABI that the hypervisor exposes to guest OS.
> >
> > ie the functionality that a Linux guest enables with CONFIG_HYPERV,
> > or with CONFIG_KVM Kconfig build options.
> >
> > IIUC, there is no new CONFIG_MSHV in Linux guests, and they would
> > be expected to be built with CONFIG_HYPERV enabled, or am I wrong
> > in that respect ?
> >
> You are correct Daniel. The guest needs CONFIG_HYPERV and a few other HYPERV_*
> configs enabled. The host on the other hand needs CONFIG_MSHV_ROOT enabled.
>
I understand your recommendation now Daniel. By assigning a hypervisor
type based on 'hypervisor guest ABI', users will be able move 'Domain
XML' with
corresponding guest images across hosts that expose the same hypervisor
guest ABI, irrespective of what the underlying OS is. Such a setting
would potentially also allow Live Migration of guests across platforms
supporting the same hypervisor guest ABI.
In this particular case though, CONFIG_HYPERV is only part of the story. In
order for guests to run on top of Hyperv, they usually need
CONFIG_HYPERV_{STORAGE,NET} and other drivers.
The guests running in Mshv need virtio drivers. This is because the
underlying VMMs in these cases: Hyperv, Cloud-Hypervisor expose
different sets of paravirtualized devices to guests. Although the core
hypervisor guest ABI is the same in both cases, guests will not be able to
move across 'Hyperv' and 'mshv' configs seemlessly.
Yes, that is correct, but we already have XML attributes tracking the
device types for storage, network, etc. Probably 50% of the information
in the guest XML is expressing guest ABI in some way or other. The domain
virt type is just one part of the story.
So it is OK for 2 XML configs to use VIRT_HYPERV, while having different
settings for storage/network/etc. We're not trying to make the XML be
portable across different hypervisors, just trying to use the same
terminology for the same feature across hypervisors.
It is less likely for these two VMMs to converge on a common set of
paravirtualized and emulated devices to allow seamless migration of
guests between Hyperv and Mshv configs. Do you still see value in
converging both these configs under the hypervisor type,
VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV?
Yes, I still believe VIRT_HYPERV is the right choice here.
With 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 :|
10:17 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] conf: Introduce mshv hypervisor type
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:20:52PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:38:42AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:15:21AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:12:15AM -0800, Praveen Paladugu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:57:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang?? wrote:
> > > > > > With the introduced "mshv" hypervisor option,
Libvirt doesn't interact
> > > > > > with "/dev/mshv" at all. Libvirt just invokes
cloud-hypervisor which in
> > > > > > turn talks to mshv via kernel ioctls as necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's OK. The distinction of control/mgmt API is
represented
> > > > > by the different libvirt virConnect URI schemes. virDomainVirt
> > > > > is exclusively about what primary hypervisor guest ABI is
exposed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the explanation, Daniel.
> > > > By "underlying hypervisor guest ABI" I am guessing you are
referring to
> > > > the interfaces used for starting and managing guests. If so, the ABIs
available
> > > > in Hyperv(VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV) and "mshv" configurations
are completely
> > > > different too. This is because the underlying Operating systems:
Windows and
> > > > Linux respectively, provide different interfaces for programs to
start and
> > > > manage guests. So, I'd say the hypervisor guest ABIs are
different in
> > > > these 2 configurations.
> > >
> > > By 'hypervisor guest ABI' I'm referring to the general
virtualization
> > > ABI that the hypervisor exposes to guest OS.
> > >
> > > ie the functionality that a Linux guest enables with CONFIG_HYPERV,
> > > or with CONFIG_KVM Kconfig build options.
> > >
> > > IIUC, there is no new CONFIG_MSHV in Linux guests, and they would
> > > be expected to be built with CONFIG_HYPERV enabled, or am I wrong
> > > in that respect ?
> > >
> > You are correct Daniel. The guest needs CONFIG_HYPERV and a few other HYPERV_*
> > configs enabled. The host on the other hand needs CONFIG_MSHV_ROOT enabled.
> >
>
> I understand your recommendation now Daniel. By assigning a hypervisor
> type based on 'hypervisor guest ABI', users will be able move 'Domain
XML' with
> corresponding guest images across hosts that expose the same hypervisor
> guest ABI, irrespective of what the underlying OS is. Such a setting
> would potentially also allow Live Migration of guests across platforms
> supporting the same hypervisor guest ABI.
>
> In this particular case though, CONFIG_HYPERV is only part of the story. In
> order for guests to run on top of Hyperv, they usually need
> CONFIG_HYPERV_{STORAGE,NET} and other drivers.
>
> The guests running in Mshv need virtio drivers. This is because the
> underlying VMMs in these cases: Hyperv, Cloud-Hypervisor expose
> different sets of paravirtualized devices to guests. Although the core
> hypervisor guest ABI is the same in both cases, guests will not be able to
> move across 'Hyperv' and 'mshv' configs seemlessly.
Yes, that is correct, but we already have XML attributes tracking the
device types for storage, network, etc. Probably 50% of the information
in the guest XML is expressing guest ABI in some way or other. The domain
virt type is just one part of the story.
So it is OK for 2 XML configs to use VIRT_HYPERV, while having different
settings for storage/network/etc. We're not trying to make the XML be
portable across different hypervisors, just trying to use the same
terminology for the same feature across hypervisors.
> It is less likely for these two VMMs to converge on a common set of
> paravirtualized and emulated devices to allow seamless migration of
> guests between Hyperv and Mshv configs. Do you still see value in
> converging both these configs under the hypervisor type,
> VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV?
Yes, I still believe VIRT_HYPERV is the right choice here.
Thanks for the discussion Daniel. This reasoning sounds good to me. I will
refactor this patchset to use VIRT_HYPERV as the hypervisor type.
Praveen
>
> With 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 :|
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org
2:44 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 2/2] ch: Check for hypervisor while starting guests
While initializing ch driver, confirm either /dev/kvm or /dev/mshv
device is present. Before starting domains, validate the requested
hypervisor device exists on the host.
Users can specify hypervisor in ch guests's domain definitions like
below:
<domain type='kvm'>
_or_
<domain type='mshv'>
Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal(a)linux.microsoft.com>
---
src/ch/ch_conf.c | 2 ++
src/ch/ch_driver.c | 7 +++++++
src/ch/ch_process.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/ch/ch_conf.c b/src/ch/ch_conf.c
index f421af5121..7cb113bca5 100644
--- a/src/ch/ch_conf.c
+++ b/src/ch/ch_conf.c
@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ virCaps *virCHDriverCapsInit(void)
virCapabilitiesAddGuestDomain(guest, VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM,
NULL, NULL, 0, NULL);
+ virCapabilitiesAddGuestDomain(guest, VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV,
+ NULL, NULL, 0, NULL);
return g_steal_pointer(&caps);
}
diff --git a/src/ch/ch_driver.c b/src/ch/ch_driver.c
index 96de5044ac..d6294c76ee 100644
--- a/src/ch/ch_driver.c
+++ b/src/ch/ch_driver.c
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
#include "viraccessapicheck.h"
#include "virchrdev.h"
#include "virerror.h"
+#include "virfile.h"
#include "virlog.h"
#include "virobject.h"
#include "virtypedparam.h"
@@ -876,6 +877,12 @@ static int chStateInitialize(bool privileged,
return -1;
}
+ if (!(virFileExists("/dev/kvm") || virFileExists("/dev/mshv")))
{
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_DEVICE_MISSING, "%s",
+ _("/dev/kvm and /dev/mshv. ch driver failed to
initialize."));
+ return VIR_DRV_STATE_INIT_ERROR;
+ }
+
ch_driver = g_new0(virCHDriver, 1);
if (virMutexInit(&ch_driver->lock) < 0) {
diff --git a/src/ch/ch_process.c b/src/ch/ch_process.c
index f3bb4a7280..d9f943c50b 100644
--- a/src/ch/ch_process.c
+++ b/src/ch/ch_process.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include "ch_process.h"
#include "domain_cgroup.h"
#include "virerror.h"
+#include "virfile.h"
#include "virjson.h"
#include "virlog.h"
@@ -448,6 +449,35 @@ virCHProcessSetupVcpus(virDomainObj *vm)
return 0;
}
+/**
+ * virCHProcessStartValidate:
+ * @vm: domain object
+ *
+ * Checks done before starting a VM.
+ *
+ * Returns 0 on success or -1 in case of error
+ */
+static int virCHProcessStartValidate(virDomainObj *vm)
+{
+ if (vm->def->virtType == VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM) {
+ VIR_DEBUG("Checking for KVM availability");
+ if (!virFileExists("/dev/kvm")) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
+ _("Domain requires KVM, but it is not available.
Check that virtualization is enabled in the host BIOS, and host configuration is setup to
load the kvm modules."));
+ return -1;
+ }
+ } else if (vm->def->virtType == VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_MSHV) {
+ VIR_DEBUG("Checking for MSHV availability");
+ if (!virFileExists("/dev/mshv")) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
+ _("Domain requires MSHV, but it is not available.
Check that virtualization is enabled in the host BIOS, and host configuration is setup to
load the mshv modules."));
+ return -1;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+
+}
+
/**
* virCHProcessStart:
* @driver: pointer to driver structure
@@ -475,6 +505,10 @@ virCHProcessStart(virCHDriver *driver,
return -1;
}
+ if (virCHProcessStartValidate(vm) < 0) {
+ return -1;
+ }
+
if (!priv->monitor) {
/* And we can get the first monitor connection now too */
if (!(priv->monitor = virCHProcessConnectMonitor(driver, vm))) {
--
2.43.0
93
days inactive
110
days old
11 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrangé -
Praveen K Paladugu -
Praveen Paladugu