Dec 9 2018
Dec 7 2018
Oct 15 2018
Oct 13 2018
Sorry not reproducible on my end. May be related to the fact that you are running a non-standard setup with custom compiled binaries. By running packages from your distro there is a higher chance that bugs are more visible for more people and more likely to be fixed.
Oct 12 2018
made no difference.
It could be the VM is confused because apparently there are two types of mice attached. I assumed that by adding virtio-mouse it would override and replace the emulated one. Turns out its not this way and I went ahead and reverted this config which should be effective in the next release.
Oct 8 2018
Aug 9 2018
Jul 24 2018
Jun 30 2018
Apr 30 2018
virt-sparsify solution dropped because needs booting the image with qemu-system (not clean, to much unknown consequences, see attached ouptut).
Apr 26 2018
Mar 1 2018
NB for the record: with qemu-ga a guest can still shut itself off via crafted input to the agent. So besides removing timer access to the guest, there was no other advantage to removing ACPI.
Actually we don't have to suspend the guest. Execution of any command on the host after resume is enough to create a uniqu event in the qemu-ga's log file.
The proper and direct way to use virsh to communicate with guest agent:
The YAJL parser used in libvirt is tiny, modern (written in2007) and has no CVEs. It is an SAX type event-driven parser unlike the vulnerable, top-down recursive descent type that was used in QEMU.
Feb 28 2018
It turns out the QEMU guest agent warning was not relevant to those who use libvirt. With libvirt a safe parser is used. Breakouts can only happen if a process on the host is designed to parse guest input because there is no way to control that otherwise it should be safe for our uses. This potentially simplifies the design in many respects but a host package will still be needed. I will update the task list.
[libvirt-users] QEMU guest-agent safety in hostile VM?
Feb 23 2018
Feb 14 2018
Yes there are less moving parts especially when multiple WSs share a GW. Some way to exempt timesync traffic from the WS would be needed though.
Feb 12 2018
HulaHoop added a comment.
With qemu-ga code the whole clock drift detection code becomes redundant. If a
suspend event is triggered the GW should assume clocks are out of sync and
With qemu-ga code the hwclock drift detection code becomes redundant. If a suspend event is triggered the GW should assume clocks are out of sync and trigger lockdown.
Oops didn't realize ntpdate requires query of remote servers. ntpdate is obsolete anyhow but the newer clockdiff still talks to online servers instead of comparing local values. hwclock can give us that:
It's a very good rehash!
Feb 11 2018
@Patrick I wrote a rehash. If you think is too complicated, let me know. It was the simplest and most reliable way I could think of:
Feb 4 2018
Didn't rehash. What's next here? Looks like we learned a lot, but then things stalled. Could you please rehash, and then create a follow-up ticket with the way forward? @HulaHoop
Apr 13 2017
Mar 13 2017
Mar 11 2017
If you have time could you check how long it takes with 5 or 6 threads? I think it will be near equal to 8, not for reproducibility reasons just for efficient use of system resources. There is probably no reason to use 16 cores on a machine that supports it which would be overkill
Mar 10 2017
Sorry for all this confusion, I think it is only a difference between whether the program "tries" to operate in a single-threaded mode or multi-threaded mode, when we use --threads=1 or don't specify it (default is 1) it compresses the whole file in a single block, however setting --threads 0 or bigger than 1 triggers the multi-threaded mode and the file is split into blocks depending on the compression level and then compressed resulting in a difference in the archive file. how many threads actually used is irrelevant. changing compression level or manually specifying the block sizes will change the outcome.
I will try this with xz utils binaries first in Windows host and then with half of the available cores in Windows VM
I may be wrong, the best way to test this is to maybe create the same archive with half of the available cores in a VM however I can't do this, I don't have debian stretch
I mean reproducibility "between" computers, not on the same one
Did you compare your --threads=30 archive with --threads=8 archive?
anonymous1 added a comment.
Could you please check how long it takes with 4 threads, using %50 of
cpu is expected, it does mean it will take twice as long
This quoted part indicates physical cpu threads:
Could you please check how long it takes with 4 threads, using %50 of cpu is expected, it does not necessarily mean it will take twice as long
I think in the worst case you could care less about a perfectly reproducible end archive (tar.xz) and instead focus on the extracted (tar) file being reproducible, for example linux kernel files are compressed either xz or gz but only the tar itself is signed
If you have 8 threads and if using more than 8 produces same checksum as 8, then what I said would be true
I think the default settings are optimal
anonymous1 added a comment.you could also try lowering or increasing the compression dictionary size to see how it affects the size and speed, however I don't know the commands
anonymous1 added a comment.But I have a feeling it would produce different archives with different number of threads, single core vs dual core vs quad core vs custom vm cores
But I have a feeling it would produce different archives with different number of threads, single core vs dual core vs quad core vs custom vm cores