WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] RE: Building domains as a lesser user (was Re: [Xen-devel] b

To: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: Building domains as a lesser user (was Re: [Xen-devel] bootloaders for domain != 0)
From: Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:20:53 -0500
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:22:01 +0000
Envelope-to: xen+James.Bulpin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D1236FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-id: List for Xen developers <xen-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D1236FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 09:38 +0000, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 02:30 +0000, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > Especially as you start thinking about things like modular fs's, etc,
> > it's going to be much less clean of a solution and be a significant
> > slowdown on your guest boot time.
> 
> A few seconds slow down -- nothing compared to what a BIOS normally
> adds.
> 
> I don't see why the filesystems would particularly need to be modular,
> though you might do so for convenience. 

Because if the kernel is _different_ than every other kernel being
shipped by a distribution, then it's a major pain.  It also ends up
giving people a lot less flexibility (because if I were to do that, for
example, it would only have ext[23] support leaving users of
reiserfs/xfs/jfs/foofs out in the cold whereas with a modular solution,
they can at least add the support for what they want).

> > And then, it's yet another kernel to keep updated, etc.
> 
> I don't see any reason to keep it up to date. Its running in a protected
> environemnt and doesn't have any extra access that the kernel about to
> be booted is going to get.

Users don't tend to take that answer very well ;)  The protected
environment means you can have a little bit longer to fix it, but they
have things like audit requirements, etc.  And just because it's running
in a protected environment doesn't mean it's bug-free.  Or that it's
going to be able to stand still as filesystem features are added, etc.
This ends up being less of a concern with minimalistic implementations
for reading filesystems like grub's and libext2fs.

Jeremy



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel