From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>,
"Fabiano Rosas" <farosas@linux.ibm.com>,
muriloo@linux.ibm.com, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
"Daniel Henrique Barboza" <danielhb413@gmail.com>,
mopsfelder@gmail.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org,
"Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>,
qemu-RISC-V <qemu-riscv@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: QEMU 32-bit vs. 64-bit binaries
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 10:22:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ynou3EnxfSmrzGT0@work-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8Ff45KeuQm-v8MwXX_i+P51uF-ovpQvtGD3hx1bi3A9g@mail.gmail.com>
* 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.
ARM is a lot cleaner than x86; you don't suddenly find a little Cortex-M
machine with a big 64 bit core in it; yet on x86 our machines are
frankenstinian mixes with 25 year old chipsets and modern CPUs.
Dave
> -- PMM
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-10 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-29 23:31 [PATCH] mos6522: fix linking error when CONFIG_MOS6522 is not set Murilo Opsfelder Araujo
2022-05-02 9:43 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-02 13:36 ` Murilo Opsfelder Araújo
2022-05-03 14:06 ` Fabiano Rosas
2022-05-04 7:16 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-04 14:26 ` Fabiano Rosas
2022-05-04 14:48 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-10 8:03 ` QEMU 32-bit vs. 64-bit binaries (was: [PATCH] mos6522: fix linking error when CONFIG_MOS6522 is not set) Thomas Huth
2022-05-10 8:26 ` Alistair Francis
2022-05-10 8:54 ` QEMU 32-bit vs. 64-bit binaries Markus Armbruster
2022-05-10 9:01 ` Thomas Huth
2022-05-10 9:14 ` Peter Maydell
2022-05-10 9:22 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert [this message]
2022-05-10 9:31 ` Thomas Huth
2022-05-10 9:47 ` Peter Maydell
2022-05-10 10:14 ` BALATON Zoltan
2022-05-10 12:20 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2022-05-10 12:25 ` Peter Maydell
2022-05-04 7:10 ` [PATCH] mos6522: fix linking error when CONFIG_MOS6522 is not set Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-04 13:16 ` Murilo Opsfelder Araújo
2022-05-04 14:32 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-05 1:24 ` Murilo Opsfelder Araújo
2022-05-05 8:19 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-05-10 8:40 ` QEMU with reduced amount of machines in the config (was: [PATCH] mos6522: fix linking error when CONFIG_MOS6522 is not set) Thomas Huth
2022-05-06 23:44 ` [PATCH] mos6522: fix linking error when CONFIG_MOS6522 is not set Murilo Opsfelder Araújo
2022-05-08 9:30 ` Mark Cave-Ayland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Ynou3EnxfSmrzGT0@work-vm \
--to=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=clg@kaod.org \
--cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
--cc=f4bug@amsat.org \
--cc=farosas@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk \
--cc=mopsfelder@gmail.com \
--cc=muriloo@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-riscv@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.