From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Xen 4.1.x security support Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:46:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1379450799.11304.205.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk> References: <52377FC0.6000302@invisiblethingslab.com> <5238172E02000078000F3DBB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <52389387.10008@invisiblethingslab.com> <52389516.7020905@invisiblethingslab.com> <1379445486.11304.195.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk> <5238B3AA.3090805@invisiblethingslab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5238B3AA.3090805@invisiblethingslab.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Joanna Rutkowska Cc: Marek =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marczykowski-G=F3recki?= , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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.