Packer is an option (better than Ansible in this case).

Otherwise, use xo CLI to do that.

We should probably talk in private for some details @throk 😉
Also ping @ch_s

Fresh install of CentOS 7 👍

The documentation is now in a much better shape than when I started this thread, has been available for months at https://xcp-ng.org/docs/.

You can still contribute to it. Each page footer has a "help us improve this page" link that allows to create a pull request with your changes.

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the documentation and to those who will.

@olivierlambert

THX Olivier

looks like it Working
I hope i can build a Coreboot with a Supermicroboard 🙂

@stormi Actually you are correct and it is call "xen"

https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Compiling_Xen_From_Source

I see that on the XCP-ng 8.2 ISO that you are using a variant of the 4.13 Xen hypervisor. I think that is where I will start my reading up on things.

Thanks again and I appreciate your help

@olivierlambert I also just did not see the actual Hypervisor repo on the XCP-ng Github (https://github.com/xcp-ng)

Thanks my friend. You are so very helpful to me as I endeavor to get deeper ingrained into XCP-ng.

For the effort start, I have come across reasonable RDP stuff from the FreeRDP project as well as OGON.

FreeRDP (https://www.freerdp.com/)
OGON (https://github.com/ogon-project/ogon)

The FreeRDP project has a simplified shadow server that might be used as the basis for an RDP server and the OGON project as a similar, but more advanced, type server that also allows for plugable modules in that it could be used for RDP and even SPICE in the future, if I remember correctly while I think that they have VNC already coded up.

My thoughts are to find out where XCP-ng currently handles all of the VNC stuff for the hypervisor which I think that @olivierlambert just sent the link so as to see if it might be possible to build out probably the OGON server from there to allow supporting the VNC, RDP, and SPICE multiple protocols.

I will take some time, but if all goes well then the user should be able to connect to any of the VM consoles (Linux, Windows, etc.) with any of these protocols and not have to do it from within the Guest VM.

At least that is goal
Cheers

Hi All,

Actually what I think that I am looking to patch into XCP-ng is a way to have a "console" Passthrough which I think would do the job perfectly.

I am developing a PoC project using XCP-ng just for a heads up so some questions may sound non-standard but in my mind I have a rationale for looking in that direction so any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

If you need virtual desktop infrastructure, also take a look to UDS Enterprise 🙂

XOA is meant to be disposable. Config is pretty thin, all Xen objects are in memory only.

In case of problem, just deploy a new one and import the config. Works well for people who even lost their physical hypervisors (thanks for backup being entirely self-contained, even a fresh XOA is able to restore backups made by an old lost XOA)

Hi,

I just wanted to report facing the same issue, and the exact same error message for the same BFD device number as OP.

In my case, I'm attempting to pass one of the USB 2.0 Controllers from my Supermicro X10SDV-TLN4F motherboard (featuing a xeon-d 1541 CPU). Since it is the same BFD number as OP, I wouldn't be suprised it's similar hardware.

00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 8 Series/C220 Series Chipset Family USB EHCI #1 (rev 05)

After the device is hidden in grub.cfg it is correctly reported by xl pci-assignable-list. The error I get on VM start-up after assignation is:

Internal error: xenopsd internal error: Cannot_add(0000:00:1d.0, Xenctrlext.Unix_error(30, "1: Operation not permitted"))

FYI, passing the entire USB Controller was my 2nd attempt at passing a USB Bluetooth dongle which I was unssuccessfull in acheiving due to similar issues as in https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/266/usb-passthrough-test-reports-in-7-5rc1.

The RMRR explanation makes a lot of sense to me as well. I wouldn't mind passing more BFD devices to the same VMs if it fixes the issue, but I haven't found a combination that works.

I was hoping someone extrapolated a way to make this works in XCP-ng from the work done in the Qubes community as mentionned by @hkparker.

See also https://xcp-ng.org/docs/security.html

And https://xcp-ng.org/blog/tag/security/

@maxcuttins "But I have to say: developers are crazy."
Yes I am using an own GitLab instance, too.
And yes they are crazy, in one more way ... they are doing sooo many updates but then there is this ONE 4 year old one with a central feature I was looking for and can't imagine, why it is not done since the beginning 😁

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/14207

@jokurinopoloski I reviewed your PR!

Thanks for the contribution 🙂

It's an Open Source platform, you have the choice 🙂 Obviously, if there's not enough traction here (community and/or business), I suppose you understand why it's not a priority for us 🙂

Good 🙂 Thanks @Danp feel free to update the doc with the things that unclear, so more people can do that kind of build!

@olivierlambert @stormi

So I have been working on this repo for about a month now and it is in a far worse state than I ever imagined. I showed the codebase to some golang pro's and they pretty much roasted every aspect of the original source code. It uses multiple depreciated packages, breaks multiple best practices that golang considers to be fundamental to portability and future-proofing, has a complete lack of any documentation on a variety of esoteric calls, and the source code does not compile against GOOS=freebsd.

I was hoping I could just make some quick changes to clean up this repo for the XCP-NG community but this is a huge endeavor to get in a good place for the future. I would very much like to continue work on this but it has become clear to me that a small team of developers will be required to finish this in a timely fashion. I would suggest creating a new repo called XCP-guest-tools as a properly upgraded version of this repo would rewrite 40%-60% of the original source code to bring it up to a reasonable standard. I also think at that point it would be extremely unlikely that Citrix would ever merge the changes so splitting off to a newly named package would go a long way to avoid confusion about versions and source.