On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 01:39:49PM -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: > On 4/25/25 00:35, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 11:33:47AM -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: > > > Feedback > > > ======== > > > > > > The goal of this series is to be spark a conversation around following > > > topics: > > > > > > - Would you be open to such an approach? (expose all code, and restrict > > > commands > > > registered at runtime only for specific targets) > > > > QMP defines a public API between QEMU and external mgmt apps, and > > personally I > > like the idea that the API exposed is identical across all binaries and thus > > the API becomes independent of the impl choice of combined vs separate > > binaries,. > > > > > - Are there unexpected consequences for libvirt or other consumers to > > > expose > > > more definitions than what we have now? > > > > QEMU used the selective hiding of commands in the QMP schema as a mechanism > > to allow mgmt apps to probe for supported features. We need to check usage > > of each QMP API feature that's behind a TARGET_* condition and identify > > which libvirt uses as a feature probe, then come up with a strategy for how > > best to handle each case in libvirt in future. We might need some additional > > runtime mechanism to probe for certain things, but we won't know until we > > look at things in more detail. > > > > Could we consider to hide the concerned commands from introspection related > commands as well? The same way we prevent those commands to be registered, > we can probably prevent them from being visible for libvirt. > The code would still be there, and compiled once, but based on runtime > target_X() value, it would not appear in introspected schema. > > I'm not sure how all this is implemented from QAPI code generator, maybe > it's hard to do something like this, if we build the schema at compile time > for instance. > > > > - Would you recommend another approach instead? I experimented with > > > having per > > > target generated files, but we still need to expose quite a lot in > > > headers, so > > > my opinion is that it's much more complicated for zero benefit. As > > > well, the > > > code size impact is more than negligible, so the simpler, the better. > > > > IMHO it is unfortunate that the API we currently expose has a dependency on > > a specific impl choice that mgmt apps are expected to rely on for feature > > probing. An ideal API design is not so closely coupled to impl choice > > (separate vs combined binaries), and would expose enough functionality > > such that mgmt apps continue to work regardless of the impl choices. > > > > At this point, do we know which kind of "feature" gets probed? Is it only > the list of commands available, or is there probes based on enum/struct > definition?
In general if it is visible from QMP it is liable to get probed - any and every aspect of it is in scope. To figure this out you need to produce a list of each command/struct/field that has a 'if $TARGET' conditional, and check whether libvirt uses it or not. > > We thought the conditionals were a good thing when we first designed QMP > > this way. We ended up using two distinct classes of conditionals, one > > reflecting build time features and one reflecting which target binary is > > used. I don't think we fully contemplated the implications that the latter > > set of conditionals would have on our ability to change our impl approach > > in future. I think the proposal here is taking us in a good direction > > given what we now know. > > > > Thanks for considering an alternative way given the new needs, that's > appreciated. > > Would that possible to get some help from people from libvirt or QAPI > developers for this? There challenge here is how QEMU will change this without back compat problems. Our deprecation process won't work well here. There's no nice way to flag up that we're about to change the way conditionals work. Most of the time libvirt adapts by changing the way we "probe the data", but in this case its about adapting to the way we "probe data about the data". This kind of problem is why I liked the previous idea that Phillippe was trying of introducing a "qemu-system-any" - it didn't affect the behaviour of existing qemu-system-$TARGET commands, so apps had a clean line in the sand between old & new behaviour. 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 :|
