qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: QEMU 32-bit vs. 64-bit binaries


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: QEMU 32-bit vs. 64-bit binaries
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:31:04 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0

On 10/05/2022 11.22, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 10:01, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:

On 10/05/2022 10.54, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:

[...]

I once suggested in the past already that we should maybe get rid of
the 32-bit variants in case the 64-bit variant is a full superset, so
we can save compile- and test times (which is quite a bit for QEMU),
but I've been told that the 32-bit variants are mostly still required
for supporting KVM on 32-bit host machines.

Do we still care for 32-bit host machines?

As long as the Linux kernel still supports 32-bit KVM virtualization, I
think we have to keep the userspace around for that, too.

But I wonder why we're keeping qemu-system-arm around? 32-bit KVM support
for ARM has been removed with Linux kernel 5.7 as far as I know, so I think
we could likely drop the qemu-system-arm nowadays, too? Peter, Richard,
what's your opinion on this?

Two main reasons, I think:
  * command-line compatibility (ie there are lots of
    command lines out there using that binary name)
  * nobody has yet cared enough to come up with a plan for what
    we want to do differently for these 32-bit architectures,
    so the default is "keep doing what we always have"

In particular, I don't want to get rid of qemu-system-arm as the
*only* 32-bit target binary we drop. Either we stick with what
we have or we have a larger plan for sorting this out consistently
across target architectures.

To my mind, qemu-system-arm makes a lot of sense, and I'd rather see the
32 bit guests disappear from qemu-system-aarch64.
It's difficult to justify to someone running their aarch virt stack why
their binary has the security footprint that includes a camera or PDA.

I'm not very familiar with KVM on ARM - but is it possible to use KVM there with an arbitrary machine? If that's the case, a user might want to use KVM on their 64-bit host to run a 32-bit guest machine, and then you need to keep the 32-bit machines in the -aarch64 binary.

Something like that is at least theoretically possible with ppc64, I think: Using KVM-PR, it should be possible to run a g3beige (i.e. 32-bit) machine on a 64-bit host. Not sure whether anybody has tried that in recent times (afaik KVM-PR is in a rather bad shape nowadays), but it might have been possible at one point in time in the past. (PPC folks, please correct me if I'm wrong)

 Thomas




reply via email to

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