On 03/21/2010 04:00 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/21/2010 09:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Frankly, i was surprised (and taken slightly off base) by both Avi and Anthony
suggesting such a clearly inferior "add a demon to the guest space" solution.
It's a usability and deployment non-starter.
It's only clearly inferior if you ignore every consideration against it.
It's definitely not a deployment non-starter, see the tons of daemons that
come with any Linux system. [...]
Avi, please dont put arguments into my mouth that i never made.
My (clearly expressed) argument was that:
_a new guest-side demon is a transparent instrumentation non-starter_
FWIW, there's no reason you couldn't consume a vmchannel port from
within the kernel. I don't think the code needs to be in the kernel and
from a security PoV, that suggests that it should be in userspace IMHO.
But if you want to make a kernel thread, knock yourself out. I have no
objection to that from a qemu perspective. I can't see why Avi would
mind either. I think it's papering around another problem (the kernel
should control initrds IMHO) but that's a different topic.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
