* Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? @ 2021-08-18 13:42 Thomas Huth 2021-08-19 8:21 ` Jason Wang 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Thomas Huth @ 2021-08-18 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: QEMU Developers, Dmitry Fleytman, Jason Wang Cc: Yuri Benditovich, Andrew Melnychenko, Leonid Bloch, Stefan Hajnoczi, Alexander Bulekov Hi all, I recently noticed that we have quite a bunch of tickets against the vmxnet3 device in our bug trackers, which indicate that this device could be used to crash QEMU in various ways: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues?state=opened&search=vmxnet3 https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu?field.searchtext=vmxnet3 Having hardly any knowledge about this device and its usage at all, I wonder how much it is still used out there in the wild? If there are still many users of this device, is there anybody interested here in helping to get these crashes fixed in the near future? Otherwise, should we maybe rather mark this device as deprecated and remove it in a couple of releases? What do you think? Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-18 13:42 Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? Thomas Huth @ 2021-08-19 8:21 ` Jason Wang 2021-08-19 8:32 ` Yan Vugenfirer 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jason Wang @ 2021-08-19 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Huth Cc: Andrew Melnychenko, Dmitry Fleytman, Alexander Bulekov, Leonid Bloch, QEMU Developers, Yuri Benditovich, Stefan Hajnoczi On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I recently noticed that we have quite a bunch of tickets against the vmxnet3 > device in our bug trackers, which indicate that this device could be used to > crash QEMU in various ways: > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues?state=opened&search=vmxnet3 > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu?field.searchtext=vmxnet3 > > Having hardly any knowledge about this device and its usage at all, I wonder > how much it is still used out there in the wild? I guess it might have been used for virt-v2v in the past. But I'm not sure what's the status now. Thanks > If there are still many > users of this device, is there anybody interested here in helping to get > these crashes fixed in the near future? Otherwise, should we maybe rather > mark this device as deprecated and remove it in a couple of releases? What > do you think? > > Thomas > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-19 8:21 ` Jason Wang @ 2021-08-19 8:32 ` Yan Vugenfirer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Yan Vugenfirer @ 2021-08-19 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Wang Cc: Thomas Huth, Dmitry Fleytman, Yuri Benditovich, Leonid Bloch, Andrew Melnychenko, QEMU Developers, Alexander Bulekov, Stefan Hajnoczi [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1261 bytes --] Hi All, I know it is used to develop DPDK support on Windows right now. Previously it was used for different nested virtualization scenarios as well. Best regards, Yan. On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:22 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I recently noticed that we have quite a bunch of tickets against the > vmxnet3 > > device in our bug trackers, which indicate that this device could be > used to > > crash QEMU in various ways: > > > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues?state=opened&search=vmxnet3 > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu?field.searchtext=vmxnet3 > > > > Having hardly any knowledge about this device and its usage at all, I > wonder > > how much it is still used out there in the wild? > > I guess it might have been used for virt-v2v in the past. > > But I'm not sure what's the status now. > > Thanks > > > If there are still many > > users of this device, is there anybody interested here in helping to get > > these crashes fixed in the near future? Otherwise, should we maybe rather > > mark this device as deprecated and remove it in a couple of releases? > What > > do you think? > > > > Thomas > > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2119 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-18 13:42 Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? Thomas Huth 2021-08-19 8:21 ` Jason Wang @ 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-08-19 9:37 ` Peter Maydell 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Daniel P. Berrangé @ 2021-08-19 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Huth Cc: Andrew Melnychenko, Dmitry Fleytman, Alexander Bulekov, Jason Wang, Leonid Bloch, QEMU Developers, Yuri Benditovich, Stefan Hajnoczi On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:42:23PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > Hi all, > > I recently noticed that we have quite a bunch of tickets against the vmxnet3 > device in our bug trackers, which indicate that this device could be used to > crash QEMU in various ways: > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues?state=opened&search=vmxnet3 > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu?field.searchtext=vmxnet3 IIUC, all except 3 of those bugs, are issues from the device fuzzer. It is nice that we find those, but if we don't consider this a device targetted at virtualization use cases, I don't think they're a reason to remove the device. > Having hardly any knowledge about this device and its usage at all, I wonder > how much it is still used out there in the wild? If there are still many > users of this device, is there anybody interested here in helping to get > these crashes fixed in the near future? Otherwise, should we maybe rather > mark this device as deprecated and remove it in a couple of releases? What > do you think? We've got countless NIC models in QEMU most of which have minimal users, are possibly buggy, not actively maintained, but exist to support non-virtualization use cases. We've especially not had "how many users are there" as a criteria for acceptance or removal of a device. 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 :| ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé @ 2021-08-19 9:37 ` Peter Maydell 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Peter Maydell @ 2021-08-19 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel P. Berrangé Cc: Thomas Huth, Dmitry Fleytman, Yuri Benditovich, Jason Wang, Leonid Bloch, Andrew Melnychenko, QEMU Developers, Alexander Bulekov, Stefan Hajnoczi On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 09:54, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > We've especially not had "how many users > are there" as a criteria for acceptance or removal of a device. ...not least because we have no accurate way to determine the answer to that question! -- PMM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-19 9:37 ` Peter Maydell @ 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2021-08-24 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Maydell Cc: Thomas Huth, Dmitry Fleytman, Daniel P. Berrangé, Alexander Bulekov, Jason Wang, Leonid Bloch, Andrew Melnychenko, QEMU Developers, Yuri Benditovich, Stefan Hajnoczi Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 09:54, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: >> We've especially not had "how many users >> are there" as a criteria for acceptance or removal of a device. > > ...not least because we have no accurate way to determine > the answer to that question! I'd like to posit an approximate answer: "enough" if somebody is willing to provide basic care for the code, else "not enough". "Basic care" includes taking care of known bugs. CLOSED/WONTFIX because $reasons is an option. Not even looking is not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-08-19 9:37 ` Peter Maydell @ 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Markus Armbruster @ 2021-08-24 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel P. Berrangé Cc: Thomas Huth, Dmitry Fleytman, Yuri Benditovich, Jason Wang, Leonid Bloch, Andrew Melnychenko, QEMU Developers, Alexander Bulekov, Stefan Hajnoczi Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:42:23PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I recently noticed that we have quite a bunch of tickets against the vmxnet3 >> device in our bug trackers, which indicate that this device could be used to >> crash QEMU in various ways: >> >> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues?state=opened&search=vmxnet3 >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu?field.searchtext=vmxnet3 > > IIUC, all except 3 of those bugs, are issues from the device fuzzer. > > It is nice that we find those, but if we don't consider this a device > targetted at virtualization use cases, I don't think they're a reason > to remove the device. > >> Having hardly any knowledge about this device and its usage at all, I wonder >> how much it is still used out there in the wild? If there are still many >> users of this device, is there anybody interested here in helping to get >> these crashes fixed in the near future? Otherwise, should we maybe rather >> mark this device as deprecated and remove it in a couple of releases? What >> do you think? > > We've got countless NIC models in QEMU most of which have minimal users, > are possibly buggy, not actively maintained, but exist to support > non-virtualization use cases. We've especially not had "how many users > are there" as a criteria for acceptance or removal of a device. I accept "good enough for intended use", and that certain kinds of bugs are much less serious in emulation use than in virtualization use. Still, there's a difference between "possibly buggy" and "perennially unmaintained / can't even be bothered to fix known bugs". Why should we carry code that isn't of sufficient interest to anyone to motivate basic care? Moreover, having drastically different code quality requirements in the tree is problematic. Compounded by them being less than obvious. If people knew nobody cared for bugs in hw/mumble/mutter.c, they could save themselves the trouble of fuzzing or otherwise examining it. They might even be dissuaded from copying (quite possibly bad) code from it. I do believe the way we operate promotes misallocation of (scarce) resources. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-24 6:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-08-18 13:42 Is QEMU's vmxnet3 still being used? Thomas Huth 2021-08-19 8:21 ` Jason Wang 2021-08-19 8:32 ` Yan Vugenfirer 2021-08-19 8:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-08-19 9:37 ` Peter Maydell 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster 2021-08-24 6:14 ` Markus Armbruster
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.