Re: Christmas list for the kernel

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 16:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Serious question, when/if xen is in the kernel, is there a reason for
> UML? If so, why would I use UML instead of xen, and where?

Xen requires support in the host kernel.  UML (skas0 mode) does not.

I have a build system that uses UML as a better fakeroot.  I can't use qemu 
for this because I want to boot borrowing the hosts's filesystem (so the 
build doesn't need a huge binary blob of precompiled stuff to start 
doing ./configure;make;make install with...  At that point I might as well 
just distribute the final binaries and be done with it).

I don't want the thing to require root access, yet the build needs to drop a 
symlink into /, wants to mknod, chown, chroot, and perform --bind and --move 
mounts.

Fakeroot wouldn't be sufficient because there's no guarantee the host system 
is running a 2.6 kernel (no --bind or --move mounts) and worse, I'm building 
uClibc against the most recent Mazur headers I can find which means the 
resulting uClibc may not run on an older kernel (even running against a 
sufficiently old 2.6 kernel means segfaults due to missing features the new 
headers describe).

I find UML a very convenient way to get a virtual environment borrowing 
resources from the host without having to set up the host.  This means I can 
deploy it to relatively unknown systems, without requiring somebody with root 
access on those systems to replace the kernel and reboot, which generally 
isn't an option.

Rob