Re: Redesign of QEMU startup & initial configuration

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 12/16/21 11:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Not really, in particular the startup has been mostly reworked already
> > and I disagree that it is messy.  softmmu/vl.c is messy, sure: it has
> > N different command line parser for command line options, magic
> > related to default devices, and complicated ordering of -object
> > creation.
> >
> > But the building of emulator data structures is not messy; only the
> > code that transforms the user's instructions into startup commands.
> > The messy parts are almost entirely contained within softmmu/vl.c.
>
> In my opinion, the worst mess is the reordering and the (commonly
> unstated, sometimes unknown) dependencies that govern it.
> The reordering is part of the stable interface.  Its finer points
> basically nobody understands, at least not without staring at the code.

Then we agree, because that's what I meant by "the messy parts are 
almost entirely contained within softmmu/vl.c".

> > The one (and important, but fixable) exception is backends for
> > on-board devices: serial_hd, drive_get, and nd_table.
>
> Practical ideas on fixing it?

What you did with pflash, turned up to 11.

> > > * A new binary sidesteps the need to manage incompatible change.
> >
> > More precisely, a new binary sidesteps the need to integrate an
> > existing mechanism with a new transport, and deal with the
> > incompatibilities that arise.
>
> I'm not sure I got this.

Configuring the VM part in CLI and part in QMP is not something anybody 
needs nor should desire.  A new binary can use the CLI only for things 
that really have to be done before QMP is up, for example the 
configuration of sandboxing or tracing; and even that is only 
nice-to-have and not absolutely necessary.

> > The problem is that CLI and HMP, being targeted to humans (and as you
> > say below humans matter), are not necessarily trivial transports.  If
> > people find the trivial transport unusable, we will not be able to
> > retire the old CLI.
>
> Yes, a trivial CLI transport alone may not suffice to retire the old
> CLI.  By itself, that doesn't mean trivial transports must be avoided.
>
> Do I have to argue the benefits of a trivial configuration file
> transport?

I think you do; I'm not sure that a trivial configuration file transport 
is useful.  It's a middle ground in sophistication that I'm not sure 
would serve many people.  The only source of bug reports for -readconfig 
has been lxd, and I think we agree that they would be served better by QMP.

> Do I have to argue the benefits of a trivial CLI transport for use by
> relatively unsophisticated programs / relatively sophisticated humans
> (such as developers)? Can we agree these benefits are not zero?

We can.  But again I think you're misunderstanding the pain that the 
existing CLI inflicts on users.  Most users do not find the ordering 
complicated in practice; they do not even know that the issue exists. 
The problem that users have is the 100+ character command lines, and 
that can be fixed in two ways:

- with a trivial configuration file transport

- with a management tool such as virt-manager or virsh.

And I maintain that most users would be better served by the latter.  In 
fact, I constantly wonder how much we're overestimating the amount of 
people that are using QEMU.  In every post (Reddit, HN, wherever) that 
mentions QEMU being too complex and not having a front-end like 
VirtualBox, there's always someone that mentions virt-manager.

For developers it's different of course.

> > Bad CLI is also very hard to deprecate because, unlike QMP (for which
> > you can delegate the workarounds to Libvirt & friends) and HMP (for
> > which people can just learn the new thing and type it), it is baked in
> > countless scripts.  People hate it when scripts break.
>
> I assure you that bad QMP is plenty hard to deprecate, even when libvirt
> can be updated to cope.

Right, and CLI is worse. :)

> > The issues with the CLI then can be completely self-contained within
> > softmmu/vl.c, and will not influence the innards of QEMU.
>
> The issues with the CLI will still influence its users. Can we
> agree that human users deserve something better than the current
> CLI?

Deserve, yes.  Need, not sure.  Do you agree that a lot of clients of 
QEMU would be better served by Libvirt (programs) and virt-manager (humans)?

So, if I have to choose between better QMP now and better CLI now, I 
choose better QMP now.  Exactly to avoid the "somebody could" trap and 
focus on something that "we can" do now.

> I think we can learn from our experience with HMP/QMP.
>
> Good:
>
> * Separate interfaces for machines and for humans
> * Layering the human interface on top of the machine interface: HMP
>    commands implemented on top of QMP's internal C interface.

Agreed.  CLI should likewise be implemented on top of QMP's internal C 
interface, the same way non-preconfig mode concludes startup with 
qmp_x_exit_preconfig(NULL).  Second choice (inferior but sometimes 
acceptable): implement it on top of the same QOM interfaces as the QOM 
commands.

> * The stable interface is clear: QMP unless explicitly marked unstable.

Agreed, the problem here is that CLI is harder to evolve.

Paolo