| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:36:33 +0200 From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Subject: Re: [QUERY] lguest64 On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > On 07/19/2013 10:42 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> We want to reduce pvops and pvops users, not increase them... >> >> I see. So the future is true virtualization which exposes the >> underlying hardware, like KVM? Why do bare-metal virtualizers like >> Xen employ paravirtualization? Also, where does UML stand? UML is a nice thingy because it is Linux ported to itself, but it has limitations. Mostly it's speed (pagefaults and system calls are really slow) and it supports only x86/x86_64. I use UML on systems where KVM is not available. -- Thanks, //richard -- 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