Re: Xen 4.1.x security support

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>]

Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 10:39:24 AM, you wrote:

>>>> On 17.09.13 at 19:44, Joanna Rutkowska <joanna@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
>> And a somehow more general thought: what most people expect from
>> baremetal hypervisors, I think, is stability. Unlike the Linux kernel,
>> the Xen hypervisor does not need to support each and every device
>> invented on the planet, each and every possible filesystem, or
>> networking stack, etc. That's, in fact, (one of) the biggest advantage
>> of a hypervisor over a monolithic kernel. So, why, oh why, such a race
>> to keep bumping the major version over and over again?

> In fact I'm the (so far apparently only) one trying to stop further
> accelerating the release schedule from its original 9 month cycle.
> I don't recall you having chimed in when the release schedule for
> 4.4 in particular and the shortening of the release cycle in general
> was discussed on the mailing list. There were arguments in favor
> of the shortening which I certainly appreciate.

> As a side note - last we bumped the _major_ version was in Spring
> 2010, so over 3 years ago. But I guess by "major" you really
> meant "minor", which corresponds to a major release (as opposed
> to a stable one).

I don't think it's about the version number, but more the number of major changes.
But i think it's quite clear they are for the better and if you argue you want a small core,
i think all major changes that affect the core are pretty stable now, so it would be worthwhile to migrate to 4.3.

The most current day problems and development seem to be with new stuff and incomplete support
(as to former xm/xend toolstack and qemu-xen-traditional) for more 'exotic' features as pci passthrough and the like.

And about the real major version number, perhaps a major bump to 5.0 is in fact warranted now
xend is perhaps removed from unstable before the release, i think that could be considered as a major milestone.

--
Sander

> Jan