From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: Secure KVM Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:46:56 +0200 Message-ID: <1320648416.3202.5.camel@lappy> References: <1320612020.3299.22.camel@lappy> <877h3cu75a.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1320647343.3202.3.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rusty Russell , Andrea Arcangeli , Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Cyrill Gorcunov , Asias He , Anthony Liguori , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , kvm To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:54036 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750816Ab1KGGsr (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:48:47 -0500 Received: by faao14 with SMTP id o14so4789511faa.19 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:48:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 08:37 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > As you said, clone() isn't really an option - sharing things like the VM > > and handles is something which I want to avoid. How does your patch > > handle IPC? > > Use the unshare() system call? Yup, but you must somehow communicate with the master process, and this is currently missing from the lguest implementation since everything is shared (vm + fds). If you simply unshare it, you must have a different method of talking with the master process. I suggested doing it using unix sockets, and am wondering how Rusty did it in his patch. -- Sasha.