Hi Andrey,
On 12/19/22 19:59, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
According to [1], there're different ways to specify which
firmware is
to be used by a libvirt-driven VM. Namely, there's an automatic
firmware selection, e.g.:
...
<os firmware='(bios|efi)'>
...
and a manual one, e.g.:
...
<os>
<loader readonly='yes'
type='pflash'>/usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.fd</loader>
...
</os>
...
with the latter being a way to specify UEFI firmware. So let's add this
search path as well when parsing source VM's libvirt xml.
[1]
https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#bios-bootloader
Co-authored-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek(a)redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Drobyshev <andrey.drobyshev(a)virtuozzo.com>
Originally-by: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov(a)virtuozzo.com>
---
input/parse_libvirt_xml.ml | 15 +++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/input/parse_libvirt_xml.ml b/input/parse_libvirt_xml.ml
index 56ce1c22..ab72c0ce 100644
--- a/input/parse_libvirt_xml.ml
+++ b/input/parse_libvirt_xml.ml
@@ -446,12 +446,23 @@ let parse_libvirt_xml ?conn xml =
done;
List.rev !nics in
- (* Firmware. *)
+ (* Firmware.
+ * If "/domain/os" node doesn't contain "firmware" attribute
(automatic
+ * firmware), we look for the presence of "pflash" in
+ * "/domain/os/loader/@type" attribute (manual firmware), with the latter
+ * indicating the UEFI firmware.
+ * See
https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#bios-bootloader
+ *)
let firmware =
match xpath_string "/domain/os/@firmware" with
| Some "bios" -> BIOS
| Some "efi" -> UEFI
- | None | Some _ -> UnknownFirmware in
+ | Some _ -> UnknownFirmware
+ | None -> (
+ match xpath_string "/domain/os/loader/@type" with
+ | Some "pflash" -> UEFI
+ | _ -> UnknownFirmware
+ ) in
(* Fallback to BIOS if we haven't found explicitly specified firmware.
* This is VZ-specific since we're either using "/domain/os/loader" node
I'm OK with this patch.
The only reason I can't give R-b for it is that you noted me as
co-author on the patch, and I can't review my own (or co-authored)
patches. But that's not a problem; I actually tried to apply (and then
push) this patch, without any R-b's (with Rich being on PTO).
However, the patch does not apply to master @ 1c8ff404582f. The conflict
is in the trailing context of the patch: the trailing comment in v4
introduces a VZ-specific code section, whereas on the master branch, we
have:
(* Check for hostdev devices. (RHBZ#1472719) *)
let () =
Can you please rebase to the master branch and repost?
(Quickly checking versions 1 through 3 of the patch, those were all
based on the master branch; I think it is only in v4 where you have
based the patch on a downstream-only branch. That's totally fine of
course, but please send the upstream version to the list.)
Thanks!
Laszlo