On 02/07/2012 08:12 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I would really love to have this, but the problem is that we'd need a > > general purpose bytecode VM with binding to some kernel APIs. The > > bytecode VM, if made general enough to host more complicated devices, > > would likely be much larger than the actual code we have in the kernel now. > > We have the ability to upload bytecode into the kernel already. It's in > a great bytecode interpreted by the CPU itself. Unfortunately it's inflexible (has to come with the kernel) and open to security vulnerabilities. > If every user were emulating different machines, LPF this would make > sense. Are they? They aren't. > Or should we write those helpers once, in C, and > provide that for them. There are many of them: PIT/PIC/IOAPIC/MSIX tables/HPET/kvmclock/Hyper-V stuff/vhost-net/DMA remapping/IO remapping (just for x86), and some of them are quite complicated. However implementing them in bytecode amounts to exposing a stable kernel ABI, since they use such a vast range of kernel services. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
