Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751086AbWC2GGg (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:06:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751087AbWC2GGg (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:06:36 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:11171 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751086AbWC2GGg (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:06:36 -0500 To: Nick Piggin Cc: Herbert Poetzl , Bill Davidsen , Linux Kernel ML Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4428BB5C.3060803@tmr.com> <20060328085206.GA14089@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <4428FB29.8020402@yahoo.com.au> <20060328142639.GE14576@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44294BE4.2030409@yahoo.com.au> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:05:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <44294BE4.2030409@yahoo.com.au> (Nick Piggin's message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:44:52 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1527 Lines: 37 Nick Piggin writes: > I don't think I could give a complete answer... > I guess it could be stated as the increase in the complexity of > the rest of the code for someone who doesn't know anything about > the virtualization implementation. > > Completely non intrusive is something like 2 extra function calls > to/from generic code, changes to data structures are transparent > (or have simple wrappers), and there is no shared locking or data > with the rest of the kernel. And it goes up from there. > > Anyway I'm far from qualified... I just hope that with all the > work you guys are putting in that you'll be able to justify it ;) As I have been able to survey the work, the most common case is replacing a global variable with a variable we lookup via current. That plus using the security module infrastructure you can implement the semantics pretty in a straight forward manner. The only really intrusive part is that because we tickle the code differently we see a different set of problems. Such as the mess that is the proc and sysctl code, and the lack of good resource limits. But none of that is inherent to the problem it is just when you use the kernel harder and have more untrusted users you see a different set of problems. Eric - 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/