Re: Xen 4.1.x security support

[Joanna Rutkowska <joanna@invisiblethingslab.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1621 bytes --]

On 09/18/13 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.09.13 at 19:44, Joanna Rutkowska <joanna@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
>> And a somehow more general thought: what most people expect from
>> baremetal hypervisors, I think, is stability. Unlike the Linux kernel,
>> the Xen hypervisor does not need to support each and every device
>> invented on the planet, each and every possible filesystem, or
>> networking stack, etc. That's, in fact, (one of) the biggest advantage
>> of a hypervisor over a monolithic kernel. So, why, oh why, such a race
>> to keep bumping the major version over and over again?
> 
> In fact I'm the (so far apparently only) one trying to stop further
> accelerating the release schedule from its original 9 month cycle.
> I don't recall you having chimed in when the release schedule for
> 4.4 in particular and the shortening of the release cycle in general
> was discussed on the mailing list. There were arguments in favor
> of the shortening which I certainly appreciate.
> 

Well, I'm not regular on xen-devel, because I'm not a Xen developer,
really. I'm a _user_ of Xen. In an ideal world we (Qubes OS project)
should not even maintain a fork of Xen, nor be at xen-devel at all.

I just came here now because I'm worried that the team I'm leading, the
users of Xen, will now need to spend considerable amount of time on
upgrading our product to Xen 4.2, because Xen 4.1 security support is
ending soon. I can imagine there are more users of Xen who would share
my worries, hopefully they will come to this threat sooner or later and
back me up :)

joanna.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel