Attacker now needs a Docker exploit and then a VM exploit before getting to the hypervisor (and, no, pwning the VM ain't the same as pwning the hypervisor).

Not only does it allow me to partition the host for workloads but I also get security boundaries as well. While it may be a slight performance hit the segmentation also makes more logical sense in the way I view the workloads. Finally, it's trivial to template and script, so it's very low maintenance and allows for me to kill an LXC and just reprovision it if I need to make any significant changes. And I never need to migrate any data in this model (or very rarely).

but will not stop serious malware

Docker is pretty much the same but supposedly more flimsy.

Both have non-obvious configuration weaknesses that can lead to escapes.

While I generally agree with the technical argument, I fail to see the threat model here. Is it that some external threat would have prior knowledge that an important target is in close proximity to a less hardened one? It doesn't seem viable to me for nation states to spend the expensive R&D to compromise hobbyist-adjacent services in a hope that they can discover more valuable data on the host hypervisor.

Once such expensive malware is deployed, there's a huge risk that all the R&D money is spent on potentially just reconnaissance.

Of course if you have a kernel exploit you'd be able to break out (this is what gvisor mitigates to some extent), nothing seems to really protect against rowhammer/memory timing style attacks (but they don't seem to be commonly used). Beyond this, the main misconfigurations seem to be too wide volume bindings (e.g. something that allows access to the docker control socket from inside the container, or an obviously stupid mount like mounting your root inside the container).

Am I missing something?