On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:26 AM Geraldo Netto <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Roman/Friends, > > Roman, I'm having the freedom to share this message with the list once I'm > not an expert in gvisor > Actually, the idea is not to integrate gvisor, but instead take the list of > implemented syscalls and check if we implemented them in OSv or not
That actually makes tons of sense. Btw, I had a chat with gvisor folks last week and tried to convince them to open source their test suite that they are using internally to track the level of compatibility with various Linux apps. Suffice it to say, Google ppl. were... elusive > But theoretically, gvisor is written in go and go can be interfaced with > assembly/c/c++/... > So, theoretically, we might be able to replace OSv kernel by gvisor but that > would have other implications as far as I know > eg: gvisor is a user space implementation of linux kernel which means we > would still need to provide some linux ABI somehow > Maybe someone from the list might be able to correct me if I'm saying some > no-sense... That's what I assumed when I asked the question -- *theoretically* this could be done since Go can be linked with C++ just fine as a shared object and then you can route syscalls to that. Thanks, Roman. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OSv Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
