On 3/8/24 16:55, Praveen K Paladugu wrote:
>
>
> 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?
Good point. I thought capabilities are refreshed when a domain is to be
created, but that's not the case for CH driver.
And comparing the QEMU and CH code:
1) the fact whether system is capable of KVM is stored in virQEMUCaps
and only when virCaps are constructed/refreshed this information is
mirrored into the latter,
2) virQEMUCaps is stored in a cache (virFileCache) and whenever a
reference to virQEMUCaps is requested, the cache is validated, i.e.
basic checks are run (virQEMUCapsIsValid()) , like has mtime of the qemu
binary changed? is the kvm module still loaded and so on.
3) We don't have such checks in CH driver, so if the virchd is started
and then the cloud-hypervisor binary is upgraded the daemon doesn't
reconstruct (version based!) capabilities.
In order to fix this, we should mimic more what QEMU driver is doing.
Are you willing to work on that or should I (since I broke it)?
Michal
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
