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 9:54 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 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).