linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

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]

Message-ID: <4BA7D0E3.4080309@nagafix.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:19:47 +0700
From:	Antoine Martin <antoine@...afix.co.uk>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	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

On 03/23/2010 02:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alexander Graf<agraf@...e.de>  wrote
>> Yes. I think the point was that every layer in between brings potential
>> slowdown and loss of features.
>>      
> Exactly. The more 'fragmented' a project is into sub-projects, without a
> single, unified, functional reference implementation in the center of it, the
> longer it takes to fix 'unsexy' problems like trivial usability bugs.
>
> Furthermore, another negative effect is that many times features are
> implemented not in their technically best way, but in a way to keep them local
> to the project that originates them. This is done to keep deployment latencies
> and general contribution overhead down to a minimum. The moment you have to
> work with yet another project, the overhead adds up.
>
> So developers rather go for the quicker (yet inferior) hack within the
> sub-project they have best access to.
>
> Tell me this isnt happening in this space ;-)
>    
Integration is hard, requires a wider set of technical skills and 
getting good test coverage becomes more difficult.
But I agree that it is worth the effort, kvm could reap large rewards 
from putting a greater emphasis on integration (ala vbox) - no matter 
how it is achieved (cowardly not taking sides on implementation 
decisions like repository locations).

Antoine

> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>    

--
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/