OK, well I'll continue experimenting anyway. If anyone has any tips or advice it is certainly welcome. I'm also assuming that if the kernel can be gotten small enough it may as well be monolithic?
Mike On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Josh Boyer <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Michael Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Truong, I am using that page. > > What I would like to know is how much I can safely disable in the kernel. > > Does anyone have a list of what most VM images don't need? > > For example, it seems that most hardware support can go, and most > filesystem > > support that isn't needed. > > I would like to build a s small a kernel as possible that will still > > function securely. > > Your question is timely. The Fedora kernel team has been told that > the Cloud people would like a smaller kernel package, but nobody has > actually come forward with what that means. So I'm interested in > seeing what the Cloud experts reply with, because we're already doing > work on the kernel to split it up to make it smaller. The mechanics > of that are somewhat simple, but the content is the part we're > blocking on. > > (NOTE: This is for Fedora.next, not F20 so whatever you're doing is > likely unaffected.) > > josh > _______________________________________________ > cloud mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct >
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
