[lxc-devel] [PATCH] allow all iX86 strings for lxc.arch

[Stéphane Graber]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:32:04PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.engen at oracle.com):
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:05:24 -0400
> > Stéphane Graber <stgraber at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:00:53PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.engen at oracle.com):
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:54:46 +0000
> > > > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.engen at oracle.com):
> > > > > > > This change accepts the same strings for lxc.arch that
> > > > > > > setarch(8) does.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > When outputting the setting, use i386 instead of x86 since the
> > > > > > > later is not a valid input to setarch, nor will the kernel
> > > > > > > output UTS_MACHINE as x86. The kernel sets utsname.machine to
> > > > > > > i[3456]86, which are all map to PER_LINUX32.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Note that we continue to parse plain x86 as PER_LINUX32 so as
> > > > > > > not to break existing lxc configuration files.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dwight Engen <dwight.engen at oracle.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > the first part (expanding the list of allowed inputs) seems
> > > > > > fine, but the second part seems like it could break existing
> > > > > > callers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's a good point. Using an older lxc version with a config
> > > > > that's been cloned with a newer one won't work because the older
> > > > > one won't parse i386. Maybe we should output i686 instead since
> > > > > older lxc's will parse that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or are you thinking it is too dangerous that there are callers
> > > > > outside of lxc that would be confused by seeing i686 instead of
> > > > > x86? I can drop
> > > > 
> > > > Right, whiel it's highly unlikely, I could see some script parsing
> > > > that output and being confused by new values.
> > > > 
> > > > > the output part, it just seemed a bit wrong that we're using a
> > > > > value that isn't valid from the kernel nor for setarch.
> > > > 
> > > > Admittedly even templates seem to use i686 rather than x86.  So
> > > > perhaps outputting i686 is the best thing to do.
> > > > 
> > > > -serge
> > > 
> > > I think it's reasonable to switch to i686 by default, I won't
> > > cherry-pick this change into stable so even if something does use
> > > this, it won't suddenly break for our stable 1.0.x users.
> > 
> > Stéphane, do you think just expanding the list part makes sense for
> > stable? If so I can split up the change and resend patches.
> 
> I think it does, as I don't see any way that could break anyone.

Yeah, I'm fine with that, so two commits would help cherry-picking.

-- 
Stéphane Graber
Ubuntu developer
http://www.ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-devel/attachments/20140428/f65450eb/attachment.sig>