From: Jacob Gorm Hansen <jacobg@diku.dk>
To: Trent Jaeger <jaegert@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: Fw: Xen on /. again
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:11:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41F02C8B.5010304@diku.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF4FD724E2.54054596-ON85256F8E.0069ACC1-85256F8E.006DA126@us.ibm.com>
Trent Jaeger wrote:
> - isolation boundaries cost more than you might think, but computers are
> a lot faster now (10X+)
> - we need mandatory access control interface like LSM to have flexible
> control of resources (rather than dump resources to a control partition)
> - authorize access at bind time rather than at use time (no critical
> path impact)
Is there any reason to allow communication between VMs, other than
driver access? It seems to me you can just use network communication
(potentially signed or encrypted) when you need to communicate, and that
anything else would violate the fundamental 'virtual machine' abstraction?
Also, I suppose you will wish to prevent covert channels between
domains, e.g. domains communicating using various timing attacks (I move
the disk head to the other end of the disk if I wish to tell you
something), or by allocating/freeing certains parts of memory.
How much will you need to dumb down the VMs view of what is going on in
the machine to achieve this (not expose real time information, not
expose real page tables), and how much of a VMM will there be left when
you are done?
best regards,
Jacob
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 22:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-19 19:57 Fw: Xen on /. again Trent Jaeger
2005-01-20 22:11 ` Jacob Gorm Hansen [this message]
2005-01-20 22:41 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-20 23:30 ` Jacob Gorm Hansen
2005-01-21 0:14 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-21 0:48 ` David Hopwood
2005-01-21 0:55 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-21 1:32 ` David Hopwood
2005-01-21 1:38 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-21 1:09 ` Reiner Sailer
2005-01-21 7:53 ` Steven Hand
2005-01-21 8:08 ` Steven Hand
2005-01-21 2:35 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-21 11:06 ` Mark A. Williamson
2005-01-21 11:22 ` Mark A. Williamson
2005-01-21 23:37 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-22 17:20 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-22 18:16 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-23 17:52 ` Multiple netif device channels (was Fw: Xen on /. again) Mark Williamson
2005-01-25 0:32 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-25 13:52 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-25 23:06 ` Multiple netif device channels Jody Belka
2005-01-26 20:36 ` Mark Williamson
2005-01-27 0:51 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-27 14:00 ` Jody Belka
2005-01-21 0:19 ` Fw: Xen on /. again Trent Jaeger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-21 1:25 Ian Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41F02C8B.5010304@diku.dk \
--to=jacobg@diku.dk \
--cc=Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jaegert@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.