qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] storing machine data in qcow images?


From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] storing machine data in qcow images?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:46:45 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

On 06/05/2018 03:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/05/2018 02:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Binary blobs can always be base64 encoded for representation within
a valid JSON UTF-8 string (and we already have several QMP
interfaces that utilize base64 encoding to pass through what is
otherwise invalid UTF-8).  It does inflate things slightly compared
to a format that allows a raw length coupled with raw data, but that
is not necessarily a problem.

Of course how we represent them externally and/or while
using QMP / qemu-img to store and retrieve them is up for grabs.
Doesn't JSON allow binary to be encoded?  (Knowing how poorly
done JSON is, I wouldn't be surprised if not)

JSON itself does not have a binary primitive; to pass arbitrary data through
JSON you have to first encode that data into something like base64 that can
then be represented as a UTF-8 string.  For reference, look at
qapi/crypto.json and the definition of QCryptoSecretFormat.

But there isn't a way to figure out that a string is base64, which
means each application needs to know whether it's a string or
a binary.

Other than if the key name is well-known (and interpretation of the value is done according to the key, if it is interpreted at all).


How about specifying the encoding in the value?

string value:
[A-Za-z][^=\0]=S[^\0]*

base64 value:
[A-Za-z][^=\0]=B[A-Za-z0-9+/]*

or the key:
S[A-Za-z][^=\0]=[^\0]*

base64 value:
B[A-Za-z][^=\0]=[A-Za-z0-9+/]*

If we're going to express a tuple of <key,type,value>, then let's describe it as a 3-tuple, rather than trying to overload that into a 2-tuple key=value syntax. After all, while you may want a high-level layer 1 representation in JSON or something else easy to hand off to other processing, there's no requirement that the layer 0 storage in qcow2 can't be a struct in some other layout, even if we have to convert between layouts for what is stored in the file vs. what is presented to the user.

By that argument, a single JSON object (if we insist on storing a single JSON object as layer 0) might be:

[ { "name": "foo", "type": "raw", "value": "bar" },
  { "name": "quux", "type": "base64", "value": "aGVsbG8=" } ]

But figuring out how to add a "Header extension type" to docs/interop/qcow2.txt, and whether the key/value payload will usefully fit in that header extension (where we are tight on spacing, as ALL extensions combined must fit in a single cluster), or whether the header should instead have an offset field that points to some other cluster in the qcow2 image, is relatively straightforward, and relatively independent of the even bigger design question of whether we want to allow qcow2 as an image format to expose an arbitrary data store feature and what types of data should go into that store.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]