On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:39:55AM +0200, Enrique Llorente Pastora via Devel wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:38 AM Pavel Hrdina <phrd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:40:16AM +0200, Enrique Llorente via Devel wrote: > > > Add support for passing extra arguments to the passt binary through > > > the domain XML configuration. This allows users to specify additional > > > command-line arguments for passt that are not covered by existing > > > structured fields. > > > > > > The new extraArgs attribute is added to the backend element: > > > <backend type='passt' extraArgs='--debug --no-dhcp -v'/> > > > > > > The extraArgs string is parsed using g_shell_parse_argv() to split > > > it into individual arguments before passing them to the passt command. > > > > > > This change includes: > > > - New field in virDomainNetBackend structure > > > - XML schema update to allow extraArgs attribute > > > - Parsing and formatting support in domain_conf.c > > > - Backend comparison function update > > > - Memory cleanup for the new field > > > - QEMU passt integration to use the extra arguments > > > - Comprehensive tests for both user and vhostuser interfaces > > > > > > This is an RFE to gather feedback on the approach. I have a few questions > > > for the community: > > > > > > 1. Is this general approach of adding extraArgs reasonable, or should we > > > instead focus on adding specific structured fields for each passt > > > option? > > > > No, this is not something we would add to VM XML. If there is something > > missing from our XML it should be added as proper attribute and or > > element. > > > > > 2. Should extraArgs be marked as unsupported/unstable in the > > > documentation, > > > with a clear indication that it's primarily intended for development > > > and > > > testing purposes? > > > > We do have similar "feature" for QEMU where you can pass any argument > > you want for development/testing purposes, see [1]. > > > > Should we implement this with a new new <passt:commandline> tag under > the passt backend ?
If you're wanting this in order to consume it from Kubevirt then we really need to be formally modelling the required features in the XML, not doing a passthrough as we would not expect mgmt apps like Kubevirt to consume this feature. The QEMU passthrough is an escape hatch for ad-hoc experiments and debugging, not production usage. 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 :|
