lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:13:04 +0100
From:	Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>
To:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 project

Am 22.03.2010 23:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/22/2010 02:47 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Having qemu enumerate guests one way or another is not a good idea IMO 
>> since it is focused on one guest and doesn't have a system-wide entity.
> 
> There always needs to be a system wide entity.  There are two ways to 
> enumerate instances from that system wide entity.  You can centralize 
> the creation of instances and there by maintain an list of current 
> instances.  You can also allow instances to be created in a 
> decentralized manner and provide a standard mechanism for instances to 
> register themselves with the system wide entity.
> 
> IOW, it's the difference between asking libvirtd to exec(qemu) vs 
> allowing a user to exec(qemu) and having qemu connect to a well known 
> unix domain socket for libvirt to tell libvirtd that it exists.

I think the latter is exactly what I would want for myself. I do see the
advantages of having a central instance, but I really don't want to
bother with libvirt configuration files or even GUIs just to get an
ad-hoc VM up when I can simply run "qemu -hda hd.img -m 1024". Let alone
that I usually want to have full control over qemu, including monitor
access and small details available as command line options.

I know that I'm not the average user with these requirements, but still
I am one user and do have these requirements. If I could just install
libvirt, continue using qemu as I always did and libvirt picked my VMs
up for things like global enumeration, that would be more or less the
optimal thing for me.

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ