Re: Xen 4.1.x security support

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:55 +0200, Joanna Rutkowska wrote:
> On 09/17/13 21:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
> My point was that you should be adding very few features or none at all,
> keep the hypervisor as simple as possible, do not change the management
> stack all the time, etc.

I think "all the time" is a gross exaggeration TBH.

>  Otherwise it makes it difficult for other
> projects/products who use Xen to catch up. What version does Xen Client
> use, BTW?

I don't know. I'm not sure why you think I would.

> Really, who needs nested virtualization, or XSM -- these are of pure
> academic interest and only make the hypervisor unnecessary bloated, IMO.

Well, that's *your* opinion.

BTW if you want a version of Xen without those things to continue to be
supported then you are very welcome to volunteer to take over
maintenance of the 4.0 (or any, I don't know how far back you'd need to
go to predate XSM for example) stable branch once xen.org support runs
out.

> Why not keep everything that is not "core" as separate repos/projects,
> conditionally compiled/linked with the core hypervisor?

Because that would be an unmanageable nightmare for everyone involved?

> When a hypervisor gets too complex it suddenly looses all its appeal
> over a traditional kernel, doesn't it?

TBH I think you are either focused on only your own needs/requirements
or maybe you are just trolling, in which case I sadly appear to have
fallen for it. In any case I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of
this thread.

Ian.