On 3/8/2024 6:06 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 2/20/24 23:06, Praveen K Paladugu wrote:
From: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cloud-Hypervisor is capable of running VMs with kvm or mshv as the
hypervisor on Linux Host. Guest to hypevisor ABI with mshv hypervisor is
the same as in the case of VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV. So, VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_HYPERV
type will be reused to represent the config with Linux Host and mshv as the
hypervisor.
While initializing ch driver, check if either of /dev/kvm or /dev/mshv
device is present on the host. Before starting ch domains, check if the
requested hypervisor device is present on the host.
Users can specify hypervisor in ch guests's domain definitions like
below:
<domain type='kvm'>
_or_
<domain type='hyperv'>
Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <prapal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Praveen K Paladugu <praveenkpaladugu@xxxxxxxxx>
---
src/ch/ch_conf.c | 2 ++
src/ch/ch_driver.c | 7 +++++++
src/ch/ch_process.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/ch/ch_conf.c b/src/ch/ch_conf.c
index f421af5121..1911ae8f8b 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_HYPERV,
+ NULL, NULL, 0, NULL);
1: This sets support for both virtTypes unconditionally even though only
one might be supported. Problem with this approach is: I, as an user,
check for supported virtTypes (e.g. via 'virsh capabilities') find
hyperv supported only to get an error when trying to start such domain.
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",
VIR_ERR_DEVICE_MISSING code should be used for cases where a device is
looked up in domain config but it's not found (e.g. on hotunplug).
Though it's used in one other (unrelated?) case too:
virMediatedDeviceNew() - which is transitively called from domain
handling code.
But more importantly, this check needs to go to caps init [1] and here
we should merely check whether caps has at least one of the virtTypes
set (e.g. via virCapabilitiesDomainSupported()).
+ _("/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 3bde9d9dcf..640f72a9ca 100644
--- a/src/ch/ch_process.c
+++ b/src/ch/ch_process.c
@@ -637,6 +637,37 @@ chProcessAddNetworkDevices(virCHDriver *driver,
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")) {
We should check capabilities instead, just like I'm suggesting above.
As 'mshv' and 'kvm' can be configured to be loadable modules, don't you
think there is value in checking if these devices still exist before
starting a CH process?
Of course, if libvirt doesn't check here, CH process will fail to start.
It will eventually fail anyway.
+ 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_HYPERV) {
+ VIR_DEBUG("Checking for mshv availability");
+ if (!virFileExists("/dev/mshv")) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
+ _("Domain requires MSHV device, 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;
+ }
+ } else {
+ return -1;
This signals an error but doesn't set an error message.
+ }
+ return 0;
+
+}
+
/**
* virCHProcessStart:
* @driver: pointer to driver structure
@@ -664,6 +695,10 @@ 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))) {
Anyway, the idea is sound. So I'm rewriting the code per my suggestions
and merging. Would you please post a follow up patch that adds a note
about this into NEWS.rst? I think it's something that might interest users.
Thanks Michal. Sure, I will send a patch to update NEWS.rst.
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Michal
--
Regards,
Praveen
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
