Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] nommu UML

[Hajime Tazaki <thehajime@gmail.com>]

Hello David,

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:27:27 +0900,
David Gow wrote:

> I had a chance to give this a proper try with KUnit, and think it'd be
> a great options to have available: it's certainly nice to have a fast,
> easy nommu architecture for testing.

thanks for the test.

> I'd echo the comments from others that ― at least for the testing case
> ― it doesn't make much sense to go to the length to use the fancy
> zpoline patching (as neat as it is) compared to a simpler, but slower
> seccomp-based approach. It'd be nicer to have a simpler, more robust
> implementation first, and if there's a particular reason to want to
> speed it up later, zpoline can be added as an option.

I'll start to explore the possibility of this option under nommu; will
get you guys back here.

> Plus, if we can avoid the need for vm.mmap_min_addr, that'd make it
> much easier to run the nommu tests alongside all the regular UML ones,
> as none would require either root, or an otherwise particularly
> special config.

Though I thought this limitation doesn't have much impact, we'll also
experiment if this (not using mmap_min_addr) is possible or not.


thanks for the feedback !

-- Hajime