[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src/tests/net/icmp
On 11.07.2010 15:00, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Sat Jul 10 2010 at 12:30:07 +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> Given that the idea of jails/zones is to limit a userspace process,
> doing this in a userspace process is not the obvious route. It probably
> could be done with a software-isolated process, but we are desperately
> "not there" with our toolchain. Another choice would be to port rumpuser
> on top of the Xen hypervisor interface, like jym recently envisioned.
Let me get a bit more precise here :) the purpose is not to offer
container-like virtualization, but rather to have a finer grained
approach, close to microkernels, with small processes/tasks that perform
a specific functionality. What I would like to do is to get rid of the
"big dom0 uber-privileged" domain that you encounter in hypervisor-based
virtualization, by having smaller, isolated domains that perform
specific tasks (one for block device access, another for network, device
driver, so on). Without requiring to integrate
Frankly, I have no idea how this would perform; basically, dom0 can be
considered as one big uber-privileged domain, which is as critical as
the hypervisor itself; if it crashes, or gets compromised, the system is
entirely crippled. Purpose is to avoid a contamination of the whole dom0
context if only one of its part is buggy, and one requirement is to get
it as small as possible.
> Even so, rump is about virtualizing the kernel, not the user interface
> layer. Given that jails/zones is a well-understood technology with at
> least some sort of NetBSD implementation already done, why not go the
> obvious route and finish that off?
I think he was referring to using a rump kernel as a "syscall proxy
server" rather than having in-kernel virtualization like jails/zones.
That would make sense, you already have proxy-like feature with rump.
Main Index |
Thread Index |