Updates announcements and testing
@martinb Not much. I'm waiting for the developers of MooseFS to contribute documentation about how to use it.
@stormi Did the update on my two host playlab, which worked well. Do not use secureboot/UEFI or QNAP, so this is more a regression test for the usual stuff. I tested Debian, Centos and Ubuntu VMs (create, live migrate with/-out guest tools (now at 7.20.0-8), start/stop/reboot, snapshot with/-out RAM and revert, storage migrate from/to shared and local SR) and restored a Windows 10 and a Debian VM from backup. As for now, everthing is working. I will see how backup runs tonight.
@stormi Installed all of the test updates on my three-host home-lab this weekend. Similar configuration to @gskger 3 x Dell OptiPlex 7040 SFF hosts and home-built FreeNAS server with separate physical 1Gb networks for management, storage and migration. I call it my "Tiny Cluster" due to its diminutive footprint. I use it for configuration prototyping. Intel VPRO AMT on Xen hosts and storage server enables headless console operation using MeshCommander (think poor man's iDRAC). All updates were installed without issue. Backups and restores seem to work just fine. Of special interest to me was the UEFI Secure Boot capabilities. Installed the x64 dbx.auth from uefi.org (I presume since XCP-ng is 64-bit that that was the correct choice. Probably should be made explicit in the instructions.) Seems to work perfectly. I tested with Windows 10-20H2 and Windows 10-21H1. Also tested with RHEL 8.4 which has built-in support for secure boot (Microsoft-signed bootloader shim) and that too "just works." The varstore-ls <VM-uuid> command shows PK, KEK, dbx and db in the store as expected. Stops unsigned bootloader as expected on unsupported OSes. Looks great! Thank you for all of the work you've put into it. I suspect designing and building emulated system firmware is not for the faint of heart . . . Very impressive!
Thanks for your feedback @gskger , as usual. For all your prompt help/feedback you always gave here, I really need to do what I said: we'll send you some XCP-ng/XO swag, @Marc-pezin will deal with that soon (he'll contact you in private chat).
I was testing with a main focus on uefistored and the Secure Boot support. I'm happy to report that my one secureboot VM¹ started up with full signature checking and everything. This is with a custom/in-house
Additional test cases:
- Export UEFI secureboot VM to OVA and re-importing it: SUCCESS
- Copying a secureboot VM within the same pool: SUCCESS
In both cases, the new VM successfully verified the bootloader.
¹ I had loaded my
uefistoredupdate, as I was already experimenting with secureboot.
New security updates (xen + microcode)
These security updates have higher priority than the update train above. You can install them if you had already installed the previous update candidates, or install them without installing the previous update candidates.
Citrix security bulletin: https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX316324
There's a new attack related to speculative code execution,
that's why there is updated microcode (both for Intel and AMD)Updated: actually, the microcode update is only for Intel and is not related to this specific attack. Whether your hardware is vulnerable or not depends on various things (model, Xen's strategy against previous vulnerabilities, which may or may not protect you already from the new vulnerability, depending of the hardware...).
Test on XCP-ng 8.2
yum update microcode_ctl xen-dom0-libs xen-dom0-tools xen-hypervisor xen-libs xen-tools --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
- Version for microcode_ctl: 2.1-26.xs15.xcpng8.2
- Version for xen packages: 4.13.1-9.11.1.xcpng8.2
What to test
The main goal is to avoid obvious regressions, so test whatever you want. The closer to your actual use of XCP-ng, the better.
Test window before official release of the updates
Between 24h and 36h.
@stormi No regressions so far on my test pool with both sets of test updates installed.
@stormi A bit late to the party again (must try harder ) as I have been moving my rack and my test host was not set up and main pool down to running on 2 hosts..... taking one more offline would make Ceph very unhappy!!!....
Anyway, both test updates applied to my test host and I haven't managed to break anything yet!!! So looks good from my point of view.
Many thanks for the prompt feedback on the security updates everyone!
I've pushed the release button (well, actually I ran
koji move v8.2-testing v8.2-updates xen-4.13.1-9.11.1.xcpng8.2 microcode_ctl-2.1-26.xs15.xcpng8.2. Don't try this at home.), and the security updates will be available within 5 minutes, identical to what you have tested.
I have not released the rest of the update train that is being tested (see this post), so let the testing continue!
Security and bugfix updates to be released soon, please test!
So, previously some of you had tested a batch of updates (see https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/39925).
It is going to be released very soon, along with a new security update and some other changes.
What changed sinced the last tests
- QEMU was updated to fix security issues (cf. https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX316325)
- The guest tools ISO was updated to fix a small display issue (replaced
Virtual Machinein the initscript metadata)
smwas updated again to fix a regression in the previous update candidate
You can still test the new Secure Boot support, but it won't be released in the next batch of updates. We still have work to do to fix some issues, the main one being that the XCP-ng guest drivers for Windows need to be re-signed so that Windows accepts them when SB is enabled. Without this, SB + XCP-ng guest tools = unbootable VM. If you don't enable secure boot on them, the
uefistoredupdate is not supposed to change anything for your UEFI VMs.
Reminder of the previous unreleased changes
- The updated
uefistoredbrings guest SecureBoot support. The number one priority it to check that UEFI VMs still work well in various situations (including backups, restore from older backups, fresh install after the update was installed...). For SecureBoot support itself, usage detailed at https://github.com/xcp-ng/xcp-ng-org/pull/85/files currently until we merge the instructions to the official docs. We'll create a dedicated thread to discuss this feature.
- Updated XAPI brings the latest fixes from Citrix hotfix XS82E020.
- Updated storage manager (
sm) brings the latest fixes from Citrix hotfix XS82E023 as well as a fix for a minor regression this hotfix brought (detected by @ronan-a and reported upstream with a patch proposal), an experimental MooseFS driver contributed by the MooseFS developers (not enabled by default), and a fix for NFS SR creation with some QNAP devices (contributed upstream, to the
smproject, but still waiting for review after ~4 months).
xsconsolefixes DNS settings management: when changed from the text UI, DNS settings were not saved to the XAPI and were thus lost after a reboot (not contributed upstream], because there's no public git repository for XSConsole unfortunately).
- Updated blktap fixes a rare crash in specific situations.
- Updated guest tools ISO brings support for new OSes and versions, such as CentoS 8.3+ & Stream, AlmaLinux, Rocky Linux, fixed installation on FreePBX... Those have already been tested in this thread but more tests are always welcome.
How to update (XCP-ng 8.2 only)
yum update blktap forkexecd message-switch qemu rrdd-plugins sm sm-rawhba xapi-core xapi-tests xapi-xe xcp-ng-pv-tools xcp-ng-release xcp-ng-release-config xcp-ng-release-presets xenopsd xenopsd-cli xenopsd-xc xsconsole --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
If you also want to test the secure boot support (won't be released with the rest yet):
yum update uefistored --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
What to test
The main goal of the testing phase is to avoid regressions, so test whatever you want. The closer to your actual use of XCP-ng, the better.
If interested, you can also test that what we claim we have fixed is actually fixed, and have a go at guest Secure Boot.
Test window before official release of the updates
Official release due on monday.
@stormi Again more a regression test for the basic things. Tested Debian and Ubuntu VMs (create, live migrate with/-out guest tools (now at 7.20.0-9), start/stop/reboot, snapshot with/-out RAM and revert, storage migrate from/to shared and local SR). Imported Centos and Ubuntu VMs and restored a Windows 10 and a Debian VM from backup. No issues so far. Nice work.
@stormi what is the best strategy to revert a host with testing updates installed back to the standard, non-testing status? Just wondering, if there is a more simple approach than doing a clean install / revert to backup.
yum historycommand can be handy to rollback to earlier versions of RPMs that are still available on repositories.
yum downgrade same-list-of-RPMs-that-you-updatedcan also work most of the time.
Be aware though that RPM transactions are not always meant to be reversible. Replacing files is one thing, but the scriptlets that run after an update are almost never tested backwards. I don't foresee any specific issue, it's a general warning.
Did some Testing over the Weekend too.
Setup with 2 Hosts in a Pool and shared iSCSI-LMV Storage with multipath 8 paths per LUN.
Anything seems to work fine (migrate/import/cross-pool-migrate/snapshots/backups).
Even our longtime Problem (snapshots taking much too long) is getting much better (still not good, but much better).
The update was released yesterday: https://xcp-ng.org/blog/2021/06/28/summer-security-and-bugfix-updates/
Again, a lot of thanks for the feedback.
As I said earlier, the update for
uefistored, which brings guest secure boot support, was not included yet.
New installation ISO for XCP-ng 8.2
I opened a dedicated thread. Meet you there for the tests.
A bugfix kernel update available for testing
Based on Citrix's hotfix XS82E030, here's a bugfix kernel update. I don't think it will change much for most hosts, except in some specific cases.
- Previous kernel updates (that fixed network performance issues for FreeBSD and sometimes other VMs), may have reduced the performance in some situation according to Citrix. Based on the patches, it looks like it's related to IRQ affinity and cross-domain networking. Here's the patch: https://github.com/xcp-ng-rpms/kernel/blob/master/SOURCES/0001-xen-events-fix-setting-irq-affinity.patch
- Tools that need to make the
iopermsyscall were crashing on dom0. For example Supermicro Update Manager (SUM). This should fix it.
- An additional dependency was added to the
perfRPM (not installed by default) to make it able to do backtraces when you try to run it on binaries in dom0.
- A patch fixes CVE-2021-29154 was added. It's not considered a security update because it does not fix an exploitable vulnerability. It's extra defence in depth.
How to update (XCP-ng 8.2 only)
yum update kernel --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
Version that should be installed:
What to test
Installation of the update, normal use, no obvious regressions...
Plus the changes described above if you're in a situation that allows it.
Test window before release
None defined at the moment. As it's not a security update, I'll wait for more updates to be ready before I push the next train officially. But feedback is always useful as soon as it can be provided.
@stormi A lazy sunday morning, some coffee, a notebook and time for testing. Updated my two host playlab (DELL Optiplex 9010, 8.2 fully patched) and tested Debian VMs and Windows 10 VMs (create, live migrate with/-out guest tools, start/stop/reboot, snapshot with/-out RAM and revert, online-/offline storage migrate from/to shared and local SR). Restored a Windows 10 and a Debian VM from backup. All good so far for this regression test.
Hello, @stormi I did a quick test because we encounter in some cases "bad' network perfs on our pools (with Intel 10GB network cards) such as :
- VXLAN network are getting max 2.5Gbps of bandwidth
- VM to VM network with a BSD firewall in the middle getting max 2.5Gbps of bandwidth
But VM to VM (on same LAN) are getting near 10Gbps.
Testing this new kernel does not change anything on BP for theses cases.
BP still stuck at 2,5Gbps.
@jcastang AFAIK there's still room for improvement regarding network perfs in *BSD VMs, but I doubt the update was meant to address this. If you want to discuss it further, please create a new thread.