Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Provide a unified device handling function #9422

Closed
GWeck opened this issue Aug 20, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Provide a unified device handling function #9422

GWeck opened this issue Aug 20, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
P: default Priority: default. Default priority for new issues, to be replaced given sufficient information. R: duplicate Resolution: Another issue exists that is very similar to or subsumes this one. T: enhancement Type: enhancement. A new feature that does not yet exist or improvement of existing functionality.

Comments

@GWeck
Copy link

GWeck commented Aug 20, 2024

The problem you're addressing (if any)

Currently, attaching, detaching, and listing devices is performed via three CLI commands qvm-device, qvm-block, and qvm-usb, and a GUI function of the device widget., having similar, but partially different details and applicability. Furthermore, the qvm-usb command is restricted to systems running sys-usb and has a different way of addressing the devices, and the device widget switches, if possible, transparently between both commands.

It would be helpful if the functionality of these three commands was combined into a single function, started either by a single CLI command or, identically, by the device widget GUI function.

While this is probably unimportant for most device classes, it may cause considerable handling problems for USB block devices, which can be handled both via the qvm-block command or the device widget on the one hand, or via the qvm-usb command on the other hand. Especially for Windows VMs, the qvm-block command may require the Xen PV disk driver to be installed, whereas the qvm-usb command will work only if sys-usbis present, which is not possible if the system is running from a USB drive.

The solution you'd like

This new function should use the same UX (CLI and GUI) for any action and should not depend on the current restrictions, and it should address USB block devices using the same names, no matter whether they are connected to dom0 or sys-usb.

The value to a user, and who that user might be

This would conceptually simplify the use of external devices and avoid pitfalls like those currently discussed in the forum, especially as, at the moment, it is not clear if the complete functionality provided under Qubes R4.1 is available under R4.2, too.

Completion criteria checklist

(This section is for developer use only. Please do not modify it.)

@GWeck GWeck added P: default Priority: default. Default priority for new issues, to be replaced given sufficient information. T: enhancement Type: enhancement. A new feature that does not yet exist or improvement of existing functionality. labels Aug 20, 2024
@marmarek
Copy link
Member

It would be helpful if the functionality of these three commands was combined into a single function, started either by a single CLI command

qvm-device is a single command to handle all types of devices. qvm-usb is an alias to qvm-device usb, and qvm-block is an alias to qvm-device block.

As for a broader UX workflow, it's a duplicate of #8537

@marmarek marmarek added the R: duplicate Resolution: Another issue exists that is very similar to or subsumes this one. label Aug 20, 2024
Copy link

This issue has been closed as a "duplicate." This means that another issue exists that is very similar to or subsumes this one. If any useful information on this issue is not already present on the other issue, please add it in a comment on the other issue. Here are some common cases of duplicate issues:

  • The other issue is closed. The other issue being closed does not prevent this issue from duplicating it. We will examine the closed issue and, if appropriate, reopen it.
  • The other issue is for a different Qubes release. We usually maintain only one issue for all affected Qubes releases.
  • The other issue is very old. The mere age of an issue is not, by itself, a relevant factor when determining duplicates.

By default, the newer issue will be closed in favor of the older issue. However, we make exceptions when we determine that it would be significantly more useful to keep the newer issue open instead of the older one.

We respect the time and effort you have taken to file this issue, and we understand that this outcome may be unsatisfying. Please accept our sincere apologies and know that we greatly value your participation and membership in the Qubes community.

If anyone reading this believes that this issue was closed in error or that the resolution of "duplicate" is not accurate, please leave a comment below saying so, and we will review this issue again. For more information, see How issues get closed.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Aug 20, 2024
@GWeck
Copy link
Author

GWeck commented Aug 20, 2024

#8537 goes in the desired direction, but there has been no action for almost a year. Is there any progress?

@marmarek
Copy link
Member

Regardless of the answer, duplicate issue isn't helping...

Anyway, R4.3 got necessary backend changes, and some frontend changes are done already too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P: default Priority: default. Default priority for new issues, to be replaced given sufficient information. R: duplicate Resolution: Another issue exists that is very similar to or subsumes this one. T: enhancement Type: enhancement. A new feature that does not yet exist or improvement of existing functionality.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants