Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by blitzclone on Thursday February 08, 2024 @06:53AM
(#39300893)
There is no real connection to UML here. Hardware virtualization (Intel VT, AMD-V) are much faster in practice and also don't require the guest operating system to be heavily modified. So besides as curiosity or test vehicle, approaches like UML are pretty dead.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by nonrandomstring on Thursday February 08, 2024 @09:19AM
(#39302169)
Thanks.
So, slow as it may be, the win for UML (which seems to still have a heartbeat) is that it can run on uP without any specific virtualisation capabilities, right? If I could run Linux on a Z80/6502 then in theory I could run a virtualised Linux on a Z80/6502.
Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by mark_undoio on Thursday February 08, 2024 @10:25AM
(#39302988)
Yes - plus the original win of UML was also being able to run virtual instances on a kernel without proper virtualization capabilities.
In the early 2000s people used to use UMLs as a hosting platform - they didn't have the same security isolation as a proper VM (or even, necessarily, of a container) though.
How do containers have better security isolation than UML?
Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by nonrandomstring on Thursday February 08, 2024 @11:43AM
(#39304150)
When I tinkered with UML I think it was prior to cgroups (2007) [0] so
my guess is that escaping the UML instance was easier.
Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by ComputerGuru on Thursday February 08, 2024 @10:46AM
(#39303282)
The “original” UML is/was, I believe, NetBSD running as a “rump kernel” and something that virtualization of the actual kernel does not, directly and on its own, fill the shoes of.
UML is older than NetBSD rump kernels.
Re:VirtualBox KVM Public Release
by ComputerGuru on Thursday February 08, 2024 @11:30AM
(#39303968)
I stand corrected.