From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs7oe-0004r5-R0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:03:44 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs7mS-00047N-J9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:01:29 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs7mR-0003xR-CZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:01:27 -0500 Received: from [64.233.184.194] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cs7LT-0007Ig-1p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:33:35 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so169048wri for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:33:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:33:31 -0500 From: Karl Magdsick Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: OT: Running qemu without host os? In-Reply-To: <87d5vy8o6z.fsf@benpfaff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050121170202.GA11609@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <20050121192314.GA12367@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <87d5vy8o6z.fsf@benpfaff.org> Reply-To: Karl Magdsick , qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: blp@cs.stanford.edu, qemu-devel@nongnu.org > > qemu does not need to run in X. Use the -nographic option. > Additionally, I believe QEMU only uses X11 through SDL. I also believe that SDL is primarily used in conjunction with device emulation... so if you're getting rid of all emulated devices, it would seem that the use or disuse of the -nographic option would be irrelivant unless you went through a LOT of trouble to snoop and interpret what the guest was writing to the graphics card. By giving the guest access to real graphics, sound, mouse, and keyboard hardware, you are pretty much cutting SDL out of QEMU. Presumably, you would have the host hide a NIC from the guest and provide an emulated NIC or else a second physical NIC for the guest to use. You would then use the hidden NIC to remotely log all of the data you were collecting while spying on the drivers. The hidden NIC would also presumably be the only way to interact with the minimalist host. You could also do something similar with HD controllers rather than NICs and log everything to a hidden HD. However, a flaw in your virtualization/emulation would put local logs at risk for corruption. A hidden NIC or an emulated keyboard chipset would almost be mandatory in order to communicate with the minimalist host. -Karl