Typo "default" in subject line.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:46 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The 'qemu64' CPU model implements the least featureful x86_64 CPU that's
> possible. Historically this hasn't been an issue since it was rare for
> OS distros to build with a higher mandatory CPU baseline.
>
> With RHEL-9, however, the entire distro is built for the x86_64-v2 ABI
> baseline:
>
>   
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/01/05/building-red-hat-enterprise-linux-9-for-the-x86-64-v2-microarchitecture-level
>
> It is likely that other distros may take similar steps in the not too
> distant future. For example, it has been suggested for Fedora on a
> number of occassions.

Typo "occasions".

> This new baseline is not compatible with the qemu64 CPU model though.
> While it is possible to pass a '-cpu xxx' flag to qemu-x86_64, the
> usage of QEMU doesn't always allow for this. For example, the args
> are typically controlled via binfmt rules that the user has no ability
> to change. This impacts users who are trying to use podman on aarch64
> platforms, to run containers with x86_64 content. There's no arg to
> podman that can be used to change the qemu-x86_64 args, and a non-root
> user of podman can not change binfmt rules without elevating privileges:
>
>   https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/15456#issuecomment-1228210973
>
> Changing to the 'max' CPU model gives 'qemu-x86_64' maximum
> compatibility with binaries it is likely to encounter in the wild,
> and not likely to have a significant downside for existing usage.
>
> Most other architectures already use an 'any' CPU model, which is
> often mapped to 'max' (or similar) already, rather than the oldest
> possible CPU model.
>
> For the sake of consistency the 'i386' architecture is also changed
> from using 'qemu32' to 'max'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
> ---
>  linux-user/i386/target_elf.h   | 2 +-
>  linux-user/x86_64/target_elf.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>

Reply via email to