Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:00:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:00:57 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:64523 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:00:56 -0500 To: Patrick Finnegan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jdike@karaya.com Subject: Re: uml-patch-2.5.49-1 References: <20021126061021.GA17959@wotan.suse.de.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 26 Nov 2002 08:08:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: Patrick Finnegan's message of "26 Nov 2002 08:03:06 +0100" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 960 Lines: 15 Patrick Finnegan writes: > That's just one example... the idea is that you want maximal separation > between the guest OS's apps and the host OS. Sort of like "VM" on IBM's > series of mainframe architecures. Of course, that's virtualization done > in hardware not in software, but the principles are the same; you want a > maximal amount of separation between the layers. As an "idea" it doesn't make much sense for me. An mm does tie up considerable amounts of unswappable host memory (page tables, mm_struct), which could be used for a DoS without too many problems. The separation you are asking for just isn't there with UML. The same applies to other resources used by UML. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/