From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LFVFZ-0004EI-5Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:02:17 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LFVFX-0004E2-4o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:02:15 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45362 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LFVFW-0004Dy-96 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:02:14 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:64771) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LFVFV-0003an-Lq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:02:13 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LFVFU-0005Y3-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:02:13 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Merging improvements from VirtualBox OSE into qemu? Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:02:04 +0000 References: <49522F8D.4000203@turnkeylinux.org> <200812241336.01702.paul@codesourcery.com> <4952484F.6010406@turnkeylinux.org> In-Reply-To: <4952484F.6010406@turnkeylinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812241502.04984.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Liraz Siri Cc: turnkey-discuss@lists.turnkeylinux.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wednesday 24 December 2008, Liraz Siri wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: > > You need root privileges to load the random kernel modules required to d > > this. Not going to happen for qemu. > > There's at least one counter-precedent. qemu takes advantage of kqemu > which is also a "random kernel module". How would supporting a kernel > module that simplified a bridged networking be any different? Well, I'm not a great fan of kqemu to start with. I suspect it may end up being removed sooner rather than later. Networking is not a qemu specific feature. The first thing you need to do is convince the kernel folks that this is a useful feature, and get it implemented there. Then we can make qemu use that interface. What you've described sounds a lot like the pcap interface, which has its own set of problems. If your main argument is "users are too dumb to configure a bridge" then you're arguing from a fairly weak position. The answer tends to be that you need to make your configuration tools suck less. Paul