qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ayal Baron <abaron@redhat.com>
Cc: Barak Azulay <bazulay@redhat.com>,
	Gal Hammer <ghammer@redhat.com>,
	vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>,
	arch@ovirt.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] converging  around a single guest agent
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:58:16 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EC52108.7040606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78db1bdf-6440-4808-9658-19fe0e7043ea@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>

On 11/17/2011 02:46 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> I have been following this thread pretty closely and the one sentence
>> summary of
>> the current argument is: ovirt-guest-agent is already featureful and
>> tested, so
>> let's drop qemu-ga and have everyone adopt ovirt-guest-agent.
>
> What we're suggesting is let's drop *one* of the two agents (obviously it would be easier for us to drop qemu-ga, but we'd rather reach consensus and unite behind one agent regardless of which agent it is).
>
>>   Unfortunately,
>> this track strays completely away from the stated goal of
>> convergence.  I have
>> at least two examples of why the greater KVM community can never
>> adopt
>> ovirt-guest-agent as-is.  To address this, I would like to counter
>> with an
>> example on how qemu-ga can enable the deployment of ovirt-guest-agent
>> features
>> and satisfy the needs of the whole community at the same time.
>>
>> 1) Scope:  The ovirt-guest-agent contains functionality that is
>> incredibly
>> useful within the context of oVirt.  Single Sign-on is very handy but
>> KVM users
>> outside the scope of oVirt will not want this extra complexity in
>> their agent.
>> For simplicity they will probably just write something small that
>> does what they
>> need (and we have failed to provide a ubiquitous KVM agent).
>
> I totally agree, but that could easily be resolved using the plugin architecture suggested before.
>
>>
>> 1) Deployment complexity: The more complex the guest agent is, the
>> more often it
>> will need to be updated (bug/security fixes, distro compatibility,
>> new
>> features).  Rolling out guest agent updates does not scale well in
>> large
>> environments (especially when the guest and host administrators are
>> not the same
>> person).
>
> Using plugins, you just deploy the ones you need, keeping the attack surface / #bugs / need to update lower

But you still need to deploy those plugins somehow, so the logistics of 
distributing this code to multiple types/levels of guests remains, and 
plugins are insufficient to handle security fixes in the core code 
(however small that attack surface may be). Eventually you'll need a 
newer version of the guest agent installed.

qemu-ga could be the vehicle for delivering those ovirt plugins/updates, 
and qemu-ga can upgrade itself to handle it's own security fixes/updates.

With this model you can keep your agent functionality closely tied to 
the high-level management infrastructure, take liberties in what 
features/changes you need to add/make, and push-deploy those changes 
through qemu-ga. Low-level primitives to build high-level interfaces 
higher up the stack has always been a primary design goal so this all 
fits together fairly well from a QEMU perspective. The extra 
orchestration required is worth it, IMO, as the alternative is limiting 
customers to a particular distro, installing a similar backend, or 
shooting out emails to everyone asking them to update their guest agent 
so you can leverage feature X.

>
>>
>> For these reasons (and many others), I support having an agent with
>> very basic
>> primitives that can be orchestrated by the host to provide needed
>> functionality.
>> This agent would present a low-level, stable, extensible API that
>> everyone can
>> use.  Today qemu-ga supports the following verbs: sync ping info
>> shutdown
>> file-open file-close file-read file-write file-seek file-flush
>> fsfreeze-status
>> fsfreeze-freeze fsfreeze-thaw.  If we add a generic execute
>> mechanism, then the
>> agent can provide everything needed by oVirt to deploy SSO.
>>
>> Let's assume that we have already agreed on some sort of security
>> policy for the
>> write-file and exec primitives.  Consensus is possible on this issue
>> but I
>> don't want to get bogged down with that here.
>>
>> With the above primitives, SSO could be deployed automatically to a
>> guest with
>> the following sequence of commands:
>>
>> file-open "<exec-dir>/sso-package.bin" "w"
>> file-write<fh>  <buf>
>> file-close<fh>
>> file-open "<exec-dir>/sso-package.bin" "x"
>> file-exec<fh>  <args>
>> file-close<fh>
>
> The guest can run on any number of hosts.  currently, the guest tools contain all the relevant logic installed (specifically for the guest os version).
> What you're suggesting here is that we keep all the relevant guest-agent variants code on the host, automatically detect the guest os version and inject the correct file (e.g. SSO on winXP and on win2k8 is totally different).
> In addition, there might be things requiring boot for example. So to solve that we would instead need to install a set of tools on the guest like we do the guest agent today (it would be a separate package because it's management specific).  And then we would tell the guest-agent to run tools from that set?  Sounds overly complex to me.
>

The nature of the tools is more an implementation detail. It could also 
be distributed the same way it is now, except with a CLI interface or 
something rather than via virtio-serial.

Going even further, I posted another approach where ovirt-guest-agent 
just speaks to a local pipe, and qemu-ga execs ovirt-guest-agent and 
proxies RPCs via it's existing file-read/file-write interfaces. With a 
small amount work we could even provide an ovirt-exec command that 
automatically does the setup if required and takes "native" 
ovirt-guest-guest agent JSON requests/responses and nests them with a 
qemu-ga JSON request/response. So you get instant all the benefits of 
using the same transport as QMP, and QMP users get easy access to 
ovirt-guest-agent features.

Not saying that's a better approach than deploying sets of scripts, but 
there's a lot of flexibility here with at least a couple that have 
virtually no negative impact to how extensible or consumable 
ovirt-guest-agent is at the high-level management level.

>>
>> At this point, the package is installed.  It can contain whatever
>> existing logic
>> exists in the ovirt-guest-agent today.  To perform a user login,
>> we'll assume
>> that sso-package.bin contains an executable 'sso/do-user-sso':
>>
>> file-open "<exec-dir>/sso/do-user-sso" "x"
>> exec<fh>  <args>
>> file-close<fh>
>>
>> At this point the user would be logged in as before.
>>
>> Obviously, this type of approach could be made easier by providing a
>> well
>> designed exec API that returns command exit codes and (optionally)
>> command
>> output.  We could also formalize the install of additional components
>> into some
>> sort of plugin interface.  These are all relatively easy problems to
>> solve.
>>
>> If we go in this direction, we would have a simple, general-purpose
>> agent with
>> low-level primitives that everyone can use.  We would also be able to
>> easily
>> extend the agent based on the needs of individual deployments (not
>> the least of
>> which is an oVirt environment).  If certain plugins become popular
>> enough, they
>> can always be promoted to first-order API calls in future versions of
>> the API.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>>
>> --
>> Adam Litke<agl@us.ibm.com>
>> IBM Linux Technology Center
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arch mailing list
>> Arch@ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>>
>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-17 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-15 17:24 [Qemu-devel] converging around a single guest agent Barak Azulay
2011-11-15 17:33 ` Alon Levy
2011-11-16 13:08   ` Gal Hammer
2011-11-15 18:01 ` Perry Myers
2011-11-15 18:08   ` Subhendu Ghosh
2011-11-15 19:45     ` Perry Myers
2011-11-16  6:48       ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-15 19:08 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-15 22:39   ` Ayal Baron
2011-11-16  7:53     ` Hans de Goede
2011-11-16  8:16       ` Ayal Baron
2011-11-16 14:59         ` Michael Roth
2011-11-17 15:11           ` Alon Levy
2011-11-16 12:07       ` Alon Levy
2011-11-16 13:45         ` Dor Laor
2011-11-16 13:47         ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-16 17:55           ` Hans de Goede
2011-11-17 10:16             ` Alon Levy
2011-11-16 13:36     ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-16 13:39       ` Dor Laor
2011-11-16 13:42         ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-16 14:10           ` Ayal Baron
2011-11-16 14:20           ` Paolo Bonzini
2011-11-17  7:17             ` Itamar Heim
2011-11-17 14:31             ` Jamie Lokier
2011-11-16 13:45     ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-15 19:09 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-15 23:01 ` Michael Roth
2011-11-16  0:42   ` Alexander Graf
2011-11-16  7:05     ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-16  8:16       ` Alexander Graf
2011-11-16 12:13         ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-16 15:28           ` Michael Roth
2011-11-16 17:53             ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-16 21:44               ` Michael Roth
2011-11-17  0:03               ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-17  8:59                 ` Ayal Baron
2011-11-17 14:42                   ` Anthony Liguori
2011-11-16 10:18   ` Daniel P. Berrange
2011-11-16 20:24 ` Adam Litke
2011-11-17  2:09   ` Michael Roth
2011-11-17  8:46   ` Ayal Baron
2011-11-17 14:58     ` Michael Roth [this message]
2011-11-17 15:58     ` Adam Litke
2011-11-17 16:14       ` Daniel P. Berrange
2011-11-17 16:53         ` Eric Gaulin
2011-11-25 19:33         ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-17 17:09   ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-18  0:47     ` Luiz Capitulino
2011-11-17  0:48 ` [Qemu-devel] wiki summary Michael Roth
2011-11-17 16:34   ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-17 19:58     ` Michael Roth
2011-11-18 11:25       ` Barak Azulay
2011-11-18 14:10         ` Adam Litke
2011-11-18 14:21         ` Michael Roth
2011-11-24 12:40       ` Dor Laor
2011-11-24 16:47         ` Richard W.M. Jones
2011-11-25 10:07         ` Daniel P. Berrange
2011-11-27 12:19           ` Dor Laor

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=4EC52108.7040606@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=abaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=arch@ovirt.org \
    --cc=bazulay@redhat.com \
    --cc=ghammer@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).