From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Thomas Subject: Re: [PATCH] - add symmetry to para and fully virtualized domain shutdown/reboot Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:14:45 -0400 Message-ID: <44315805.2020502@virtualiron.com> References: <443145FF.5050800@virtualiron.com> <673063b66257818262b5f3c8090319e0@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <673063b66257818262b5f3c8090319e0@cl.cam.ac.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 3 Apr 2006, at 16:57, Ben Thomas wrote: > >> It would be useful if all shutdown/reboot operations were >> symmetrical from domain 0's point of view. One approach >> would be to redefine sched_op to handle other domains than >> the current domain, but this seemed excessive. > > > I'd prefer an extra sched_op (maybe SCHEDOP_remote_shutdown with > accompanying sched_remote_shutdown structure). This will need to be > invokable by the emulator mini domain at some point in the future, so > adding this as a dom0_op isn't really for the best. > > -- Keir > Ok, that's workable. Is there anything else that needs modification ? Do you foresee a need for any sort of need for filtering and/or permissioning of allowable domains as specified in remote_shutdown ? As long as a non-privileged domain may execute this op, what level of protection(s) need to exist? (That also was part of my factoring it into a DOM0 op). I'm willing to go with anything that gets the job done. This is one of several points of asymmetry that I'd like to see get resolved. Thanks, -b -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Thomas Virtual Iron Software bthomas@virtualiron.com Tower 1, Floor 2 978-849-1214 900 Chelmsford Street Lowell, MA 01851