On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 10:16:29 -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
Thanks for the update.
At this stage, even though the plugin in itself looks good, it's not
something we can really merge in, as it's relying on external behavior
that is not specified or being a standalone tool.
For instance, if we have a public Lorelei toolchain that implements this
for libraries, it would definitely have it's place upstream IMHO.
Also, the same kind of contribution can be done for other
instrumentation frameworks, so we can end up having a single interface
(and set of libraries) shared among all of them.
What do you think?
Hi Pierrick,
That makes sense.
A few thoughts in response:
The Lorelei toolchain already exists, but it will take me a little time
to migrate it onto this minimal plugin interface, since the ABI changed
somewhat over the course of the RFC.
I think Lorelei is better kept as a standalone repository: the thunk
libraries and the guest/host runtimes clearly do not belong in the QEMU
tree.
Since the plugin only defines the dlcall interface and says nothing
about how thunking is implemented, the Lorelei repo is just one
reference implementation of that side; a user is free to build their
own, with any toolchain or for any framework.
So, to make sure I take the right next step: would you like me to make
the Lorelei repository public, with CI that demonstrates the automatic
thunk generation? And should Lorelei be referenced from the plugin's
comments as a reference implementation?
Regards,
Ziyang
