Re: [MirageOS-devel] vchan/xenstore in Qubes r3

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21 Jun 2014, at 11:45, David Scott <scott.dj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I like the idea of running separate xenstore databases per VM, since there's 
> no need for guest VMs to be able to see any of each other's stuff. The only 
> tricky bit is any shared backends would have to talk to multiple xenstores, 
> and a lot of code has the assumption of a single xenstore built-in.

I guess this comes down the semantics of a distributed Xenstore and how to 
weakening the consistency exposed to VMs under the guise of transactions.  Not 
using a big Xenstore and shifting to a process-per-VM is also the model that 
Bromium's vSentry adopts for their microvirtualization, if I remember Ian's 
XenSummit talk right.

-anil


_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel