-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2013 08:46 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Julian Stecklina > <jstec...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> On 05/29/2013 04:21 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> The fact that a single switch process has shared memory access >>> to all guests' RAM is critical. If the switch process is >>> exploited, then that exposes other guests' data! (Think of a >>> multi-tenant host with guests belonging to different users.) >> >> True. But people don't mind having instruction decoding and half >> of virtio in the kernel these days, so it can't be that security >> critical... > > No, it's still security critical. If there were equivalent > solutions with better security then I'm sure people would accept > them. It's just that there isn't an equivalent solution yet :).
My comment was more or less meant in a resigning way. ;) At least we are not putting HTTP servers in there any more. Julian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGnCRMACgkQ2EtjUdW3H9mzFwCghZxvckYgZ4atLm3HLPPWF/Lb 688AnRXm12jbBlmCVOKSaDUHHejEdh7O =csrK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
