On (Wed) 14 Mar 2012 [18:04:40], Wen Congyang wrote: > At 03/14/2012 05:51 PM, Amit Shah Wrote: > > On (Wed) 14 Mar 2012 [16:29:50], Wen Congyang wrote: > >> At 03/13/2012 06:47 PM, Avi Kivity Wrote: > >>> On 03/13/2012 11:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:33:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>>>> On 03/12/2012 11:04 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: > >>>>>> Do you have any other comments about this patch? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Not really, but I'm not 100% convinced the patch is worthwhile. It's > >>>>> likely to only be used by Linux, which has kexec facilities, and you can > >>>>> put talk to management via virtio-serial and describe the crash in more > >>>>> details than a simple hypercall. > >>>> > >>>> As mentioned before, I don't think virtio-serial is a good fit for this. > >>>> We want something that is simple & guaranteed always available. Using > >>>> virtio-serial requires significant setup work on both the host and guest. > >>> > >>> So what? It needs to be done anyway for the guest agent. > >>> > >>>> Many management application won't know to make a vioserial device available > >>>> to all guests they create. > >>> > >>> Then they won't know to deal with the panic event either. > >>> > >>>> Most administrators won't even configure kexec, > >>>> let alone virtio serial on top of it. > >>> > >>> It should be done by the OS vendor, not the individual admin. > >>> > >>>> The hypercall requires zero host > >>>> side config, and zero guest side config, which IMHO is what we need for > >>>> this feature. > >>> > >>> If it was this one feature, yes. But we keep getting more and more > >>> features like that and we bloat the hypervisor. There's a reason we > >>> have a host-to-guest channel, we should use it. > >>> > >> > >> I donot know how to use virtio-serial. > >> > >> I start vm like this: > >> qemu ...\ > >> -device virtio-serial \ > >> -chardev socket,path=/tmp/foo,server,nowait,id=foo \ > >> -device virtserialport,chardev=foo,name=port1 ... > > > > This is sufficient. On the host, you can open /tmp/foo using a custom > > program or nc (nc -U /tmp/foo). On the guest, you can just open > > /dev/virtio-ports/port1 and read/write into it. > > I have two questions: > 1. does it OK to open this device when the guest is panicked? Depends on what kind of panic it is. If the guest can continue operations inspite of the panic, it will be possible to write out the data. > 2. how to prevent the userspace's program using this device? Mentioned in previous reply. BTW: an in-kernel API for reading/writing to ports isn't implemented yet, because there's no user for it as of now. If you want to write from the kernel to the host, there are trivial additions to the code necessary. (However, I think it's better to do the writing from userspace instead from the kernel itself). Amit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
