From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Ar5vL-0005Jd-H6 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:45:51 -0800 Received: from erizo.shearer.org ([210.10.97.33] helo=shearer.org) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.30) id 1Ar5uU-0000yc-AH for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:58 -0800 From: Dan Shearer Subject: Re: [uml-devel] mconsole telinit design, worry about init standards? Message-ID: <20040212014725.GV4203@erizo.shearer.org> References: <20040206003759.GY4203@erizo.shearer.org> <200402120114.i1C1E5ip008500@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402120114.i1C1E5ip008500@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:17:25 +1030 To: Jeff Dike Cc: Cameron Patrick , BlaisorBlade , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, miquels@cistron.nl Jeff, On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:14:05PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > dan@shearer.org said: > > I've got a rough implementation of an mcsonole telinit command, where > > mconsole_kern opens /dev/initctl and sends a command to change > > runlevels. > > cameron@patrick.wattle.id.au said: > > How about having some kind of generic interface to allow the host to > > access files, send signals, etc inside the VM? > > Sorry, but none of these handy things are going into the kernel. If you want > to run processes, open files, etc, you can do all that from userspace. Could you tell us what the rules are? At some level we can interact with the kernel (eg call the c-a-d and halt handlers.) Yet at another we can't (run processes.) This has to do with how much potential there is for trouble. Would you be happy with sending signals? If so, even RT signals, which have a payload? If not, perhaps you could indicate which class of things you are happy for us to trigger. Perhaps only things which can be conceptually related to the hardware... so long as we know. This is part of having a clearer model about what UML is. > I see the following possibilities: Yes, the things you propose will work. The bit that we have been trying to get away from here (in more or less ambitious ways:-) is cooperation from the UML. I don't mind relying on the UML root being non-hostile (in many cases that is their right to be relatively hostile if they like, hosting is that sort of a thing :-) but I want to avoid requiring more than a tiny minimum above ordinary software intstalled, or better still nothing at all. -- Dan Shearer dan@shearer.org ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel