Re: CVS commit: src/tests/net/icmp

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

On Mon Jul 12 2010 at 18:32:01 +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> On 12.07.2010 18:03, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > On Mon Jul 12 2010 at 17:36:10 +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> >> - routing (the same way you pass message back and forth with puffs/pud);
> >> for Xen, this cannot be solved through the hypervisor API, you have to
> >> pull in Xen ring I/Os, and Xenstore, which acts as key:value storage
> >> facility so that domains can share information ("if you want to issue
> >> block requests for xbd0, contact domain 'foo'").
> > 
> > Just to make sure everyone (else) understands: forget puffs/pud.
> > They are *completely* orthogonal to rump -- one does not require nor
> > imply the other.
> > 
> > Now, why do you expect this to not work like it does with the current
> > style of dom0? ... aah, currently everything just goes to dom0, and
> > now you'd need to pick which server can actually service your request?
> > While I'm not familiar with the Xen ecosystem (buzzword!!), from the
> > technical perspective it looks like this falls under "SMOP".
> 
> Huh? On what ground?

Routing is legwork: you add source/destination information and then pass
the request/response to the right place (?)

> My initial step would be to have a block backend driver running in
> userland, so I can make it run as a standalone server. Purpose is to
> help diagnosing errors in a more graceful manner. I lost tremendous time
> tracking a DoS issue between frontend and backend drivers for domain
> migration, for one stupid reason: the backend caused a DoS to the rest
> of the *dom0* kernel, without even being capable of breaking into ddb...

Ok, now I'm confused again.  If you want to make it run in dom0 userspace,
what is your interest with the hypercall api?  Or is that just the
initial step?  I thought you wanted multiple "dom0"s.