[virt-tools-list] [virt-manager PATCH 5/5] virt-manager: add new checkbox to control CPU security features

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 11:38:08AM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:18:23AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:52:51PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > > By default we copy CPU security features to the guest if specific CPU
> > > model is selected.  However, this may break migration and will affect
> > > performance of the guest.  This adds an option to disable this default
> > > behavior.
> > > 
> > > The checkbox is clickable only on x86 and only on host where we can
> > > detect any CPU security features, otherwise a tooltip is set to notify
> > > users that there is nothing to copy.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  ui/details.ui          | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  virtManager/details.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  virtManager/domain.py  |  5 +++--
> > >  virtinst/domain/cpu.py | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  4 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/ui/details.ui b/ui/details.ui
> > > index 8b3f939e..2ae1c104 100644
> > > --- a/ui/details.ui
> > > +++ b/ui/details.ui
> > > @@ -2122,6 +2122,31 @@
> > >                                              <property name="top_attach">1</property>
> > >                                            </packing>
> > >                                          </child>
> > > +                                        <child>
> > > +                                          <object class="GtkLabel" id="cpu-secure-label">
> > > +                                            <property name="visible">True</property>
> > > +                                            <property name="can_focus">False</property>
> > > +                                            <property name="label" translatable="yes">Copy host security features:</property>
> > 
> > I'd probably change the label to
> > 
> >   "Enable known CPU security flaw mitigations"
> 
> "known" might be misleading since not all known mitigations might be
> available on the host, how about "available" instead?  Otherwise looks
> better the suggested label.

Sure, fine with me.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|