XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    New Rust Xen guest tools

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    156 Posts 38 Posters 93.7k Views 35 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • D Offline
      David_5.1 @yann
      last edited by

      @yann here you are : https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen-guest-agent/-/issues/22

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
      • D Offline
        Dillweed @yann
        last edited by

        @kevdog @yann said in New Rust Xen guest tools:

        @kevdog great news, looking forward for this PKGBUILD!
        Wouldn't it make sense to build from release packages rather than from Git?

        The CI scripts should give you some guidance. For dependencies you should have a list at https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen-guest-agent#build-requirements. Not sure why you would want python-setuptools?

        Hey all, I put together PKGBUILD for Arch which pulls the latest git. It seems to be working fine for me. You'll need to install xen package on AUR.
        https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xen-guest-agent-git

        It's my first attempt at submitting something on AUR. I look forward to any feedback.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
        • A Online
          Andrew Top contributor @olivierlambert
          last edited by

          @olivierlambert No IP record... Using Debian 11 with Management agent 1.0.0-proto-0.4.0. It's a non-standard interface setup with the IPv4/IPv6 assigned to the bridge interface. The agent does not report any addresses up to XO.

          1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
              link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
              inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
                 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
              inet6 ::1/128 scope host
                 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
          2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
              link/ether 32:a9:24:28:18:56 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
          3: br0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
              link/ether 52:31:46:59:66:a1 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
              inet 192.168.1.33/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global br0
                 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
              inet6 2000::5031:46ff:fe59:66a1/64 scope global dynamic mngtmpaddr
                 valid_lft 2591833sec preferred_lft 604633sec
              inet6 fe80::5031:46ff:fe59:66a1/64 scope link
                 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
          
          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • olivierlambertO Offline
            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
            last edited by

            Likely because br0 isn't parsed. Pinging @yann and @TeddyAstie

            yannY 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • yannY Offline
              yann Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @olivierlambert
              last edited by yann

              @olivierlambert yes, and that's a known issue. The protocol used to communicate with XAPI only allows to report info for VIFs (and SR/IOV, with support coming with in a PR). We can likely implement something by querying the status of bridge devices and listening to their changes like we do for the VIFs, and report those for the VIFs that are part of bridges - but it's a bit more than just "parsing br0" 😉 .

              Opened https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen-guest-agent/-/issues/24

              F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • F Offline
                flakpyro @yann
                last edited by flakpyro

                With the release of Debian 13 apt now complains that the repo is not signed. Also Debain has changed to using .sources files for repos.

                For example,, the new format would be:

                Types: deb
                URIs: https://gitlab.com/api/v4/projects/xen-project%2Fxen-guest-agent/packages/generic/deb-amd64/
                Suites: release/
                Components: 
                Signed-By: https://path/to/release.gpg
                Trusted: yes
                
                

                Maybe worth addding a release.gpg to the repo and updating documentation when configuring the repo on newer Debian / Ubuntu releases?

                Example of the error when no key is present:

                Ign:8 https://gitlab.com/api/v4/projects/xen-project%2Fxen-guest-agent/packages/generic/deb-amd64 release/ InRelease
                Hit:9 https://gitlab.com/api/v4/projects/xen-project%2Fxen-guest-agent/packages/generic/deb-amd64 release/ Release
                Ign:10 https://gitlab.com/api/v4/projects/xen-project%2Fxen-guest-agent/packages/generic/deb-amd64 release/ Release.gpg
                Fetched 176 kB in 1s (154 kB/s)
                All packages are up to date.    
                Notice: Missing Signed-By in the sources.list(5) entry for 'https://gitlab.com/api/v4/projects/xen-project%2Fxen-guest-agent/packages/generic/deb-amd64'
                
                
                yannY 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • olivierlambertO Offline
                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                  last edited by

                  @yann can you update the README accordingly?

                  yannY 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • yannY Offline
                    yann Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @olivierlambert
                    last edited by

                    @olivierlambert updating the README will be quick enough... but if the sig is indeed mandatory we need to setup something for this first... and autosigning from a CI rather requires doing that on a trusted runner rather than on gitlab-provided ones, so that requires some provisioning and IT work first.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • yannY Offline
                      yann Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @flakpyro
                      last edited by

                      @flakpyro the old format is still supported, and actually the [trusted=yes] in the old-style configuration shown in the release notes does work in my quick test with our own Debian 13 hub template.

                      D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • D Offline
                        David_5.1 @yann
                        last edited by

                        One-line format should work fine with Trixie, but as the “new” deb822 format has been supported since Debian Jessie, it should be usable on most installs.

                        Jessie manpage for reference : https://manpages.debian.org/jessie/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#:~:text=rfc822

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • J Offline
                          john.c
                          last edited by john.c

                          @yann Though the deb822 format allows for that file in sources format, to have the signing key tied to that file’s specified repositories. Very important as it ensures that the key is only used by that repository, unless otherwise specified. The old format typically tends to apply that key to all repositories. So even repositories which shouldn’t use it could, worse the key was trusted for all repositories by the client.

                          In the new format the repositories can have the specific key tied to them, on the client side as well as the server side.

                          yannY 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • yannY Offline
                            yann Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @john.c
                            last edited by

                            @john.c OK, that will be useful when the repo is signed, but for now I don't see what adverse effect it can have. Do I miss something?

                            Also we try to avoid breaking support for older OS versions, so we'll likely continue to advertise the old format for older versions of Debian.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post