Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
From: Zachary Amsden
Date: Wed Mar 22 2006 - 23:01:48 EST
Chris Wright wrote:
* Zachary Amsden (zach@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
No, you don't need to dream up all the possible interface bits ahead of
time. With a la carte interfaces, you can take what you need now, and
add features later. You don't need an ABI for features. You need it
for compatibility. You will need to update the hypervisor ABI. And you
can't force people to upgrade their kernels.
How do you support an interface that's not already a part of the ABI
w/out changing the kernel?
You have to change the kernel for VMI interface upgrades - if you want
to use the upgrades. You don't need to change the kernel for hypervisor
ABI changes, nor does upgrading the interface require a kernel change.
Interface upgrades are pretty easy to compartmentalize - you add block
device support, you add a block device driver. Hypervisor ABI changes
are not so easy, because of the data dependencies and potential for
breaking compatibility. The massive security hole scenario is a good
example of why you would need to break compatibility, but any number of
things might make you want to change the hypervisor ABI.
The point of the VMI is to isolate the kernel from those changes,
allowing kernel development to proceed unhindered, and allowing
hypervisor innovation to thrive simultaneously.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/