Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu-xen: Fix PV segfault

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Levon writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu-xen: Fix PV segfault"):
> Oh, if it's just the PV bits, then it's probably part of the work to
> drop the need for the Xen daemons altogether and move to a domain ==
> running qemu implementation as Dan Berrange presented at the summit some
> time ago.

I wasn't around for that summit presentation but for the record my
personal view is that this is a bad idea.  dom0 host processes are
much more fragile (much more vulnerable to failures induced both
inside that process and from the rest of dom0) than a Xen domain.
Ideally the proper functioning of guests would not depend on that kind
of complexity.

Indeed currently even if dom0 entirely stops running user code for
some reason, it is still possible to have PV guests keep running and
cleanly shut themselves down (although management functions like
migration, device hotplug, and requesting shutdown from dom0 are of
course unavailable).

So guests should continue to be regarded as owned and parented by the
hypervisor, not by some dom0 userland process.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel