Hello, > > I believe that getting rid of QEMU is rather getting rid of PV domains than > > getting rid of QEMU itself. > > Yes and no. From security POV this is correct. But at the same time, > having qemu (with appropriate isolation) use resources (RAM, CPU), which > already are scarce on Qubes. So, we'd like to not have qemu there, where > possible.
You are right, I was focused on security, not on resource consumption. > As for PVHv2 - in theory it should be available in 4.0 already, if you > have VM kernel new enough (4.11+). Good to know. I guess that when I have a suitable kernel, I also need to configure something to switch the mode. Just an idea: It could be useful to provide bleeding-edge PVHv2 templates for those who want to test it in Q4.0. > I'm not sure either, but this is definitely something that we'll look > into. As soon as we get stable PVHv2. Right now Xen do not support PVHv2 > as stubdomain. Also, Xen do not support PVHv2 with PCI passthrough. At > least not yet. Hmm, hmm. Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/8fd5e087-c557-4045-929a-e2f3b056fc4e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
