Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>
>>I don't think I could give a complete answer...
>>I guess it could be stated as the increase in the complexity of
>>the rest of the code for someone who doesn't know anything about
>>the virtualization implementation.
>>
>>Completely non intrusive is something like 2 extra function calls
>>to/from generic code, changes to data structures are transparent
>>(or have simple wrappers), and there is no shared locking or data
>>with the rest of the kernel. And it goes up from there.
>>
>>Anyway I'm far from qualified... I just hope that with all the
>>work you guys are putting in that you'll be able to justify it ;)
>>
>
>As I have been able to survey the work, the most common case
>is replacing a global variable with a variable we lookup via
>current.
>
>That plus using the security module infrastructure you can
>implement the semantics pretty in a straight forward manner.
>
>The only really intrusive part is that because we tickle the
>code differently we see a different set of problems.  Such
>as the mess that is the proc and sysctl code, and the lack of
>good resource limits.
>
>But none of that is inherent to the problem it is just when
>you use the kernel harder and have more untrusted users you
>see a different set of problems.
>
>

Yes... about that; if/when namespaces get into the kernel, you guys
are going to start pushing all sorts of per-container resource
control, right? Or will you be happy to leave most of that to VMs?

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com