[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100322142008.GE1940@8bytes.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:20:08 +0100
From: oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>
Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Antoine Martin <antoine@...afix.co.uk>,
Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
"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>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
project
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:23:26PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:05:13PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > This is close to the way libguestfs already works. It boots QEMU/KVM pointing
> > to a minimal stripped down appliance linux OS image, containing a small agent
> > it talks to over some form of vmchannel/serial/virtio-serial device. Thus the
> > kernel in the appliance it runs is the only thing that needs to know about the
> > filesystem/lvm/dm on-disk formats - libguestfs definitely does not want to be
> > duplicating this detailed knowledge of on disk format itself. It is doing
> > full read-write access to the guest filesystem in offline mode - one of the
> > major use cases is disaster recovery from a unbootable guest OS image.
>
> As Dan said, the 'daemon' part is separate and could be run as a
> standard part of a guest install, talking over vmchannel to the host.
> The only real issue I can see is adding access control to the daemon
> (currently it doesn't need it and doesn't do any). Doing it this way
> you'd be leveraging the ~250,000 lines of existing libguestfs code,
> bindings in multiple languages, tools etc.
I think we don't need per-guest-file access control. Probably we could
apply the image-file permissions to all guestfs files. This would cover
the usecases:
* perf for reading symbol information (needs ro-access only
anyway)
* Desktop like host<->guest file copy
I have not looked into libguestfs yet but I guess this approach is
easier to achieve.
Joerg
--
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