Re: Now: Understanding Muen and base_hw kernel from docs, [Earlier] Re: Problem with make run/demo ....
Dear Norman,
On 17.04.2017 19:53, Shahbaz khan wrote:
VirtualBox closely interacts with the virtualization hardware. OnMuen,
this interaction naturally has to go through the Muen SK. By using Genode as runtime for VirtualBox, Muen is able to leverage Genode's existing solution of the interaction of VirtualBox with a microkernel-based virtualization mechanism.Similar to karma-vmm, fiasco.oc and l4linux.
I don't see the connection. My email was not related to Fiasco.OC, Karma, or L4Linux.
I think I got the problem. Muen subject is not a subject like that of an OS.
Conceptually, a Muen partition is a hardware platform, similar to a board. Like on any board, you can run software directly (insupervisor
mode). But for running a complex software stack, or more than one application, one has to use an operating system (OS). Genode/base-hw plays this role.Simply put a build time think. Base-hw kernel means muen sk for genode runtime.
Muen can be used without base-hw.
Base-hw can be used without Muen.
Second problem in my mind would be imagining the spartan environment provided by Muen to be fulfilled with Genode runtime minus microkernel. This would be as follows.
Base-HW is a microkernel as you mentioned earlier. Like a layman I ask the name of this microkernel. Is it Nova? Again to my preliminary question ... we run a micro-kernel on microkernel to run virtualbox rather than virtualbox on Muen SK.
But when combined, Genode's version of VirtualBox can run on top of Muen.
Muen is a micro-hypervisor. What is the nature of inter-subject communication? Considering we don't like pure hypervisor approach.
I liked Nova's architecture much more and I would opt for Nova if formal verification could be as simple for it as in Muen. And the luxury of C++ too.
Regards, Shahbaz
By the way, NOVA doesn't seem to be maintained anymore, except a bit by Genode developers. Is this observation correct?
On Apr 18, 2017 11:51 AM, "Shahbaz khan" <shazalive@...9...> wrote:
Dear Norman,
On 17.04.2017 19:53, Shahbaz khan wrote:
VirtualBox closely interacts with the virtualization hardware. OnMuen,
this interaction naturally has to go through the Muen SK. By using Genode as runtime for VirtualBox, Muen is able to leverage Genode's existing solution of the interaction of VirtualBox with a microkernel-based virtualization mechanism.Similar to karma-vmm, fiasco.oc and l4linux.
I don't see the connection. My email was not related to Fiasco.OC, Karma, or L4Linux.
I think I got the problem. Muen subject is not a subject like that of an OS.
Conceptually, a Muen partition is a hardware platform, similar to a board. Like on any board, you can run software directly (insupervisor
mode). But for running a complex software stack, or more than one application, one has to use an operating system (OS). Genode/base-hw plays this role.Simply put a build time think. Base-hw kernel means muen sk for genode runtime.
Muen can be used without base-hw.
Base-hw can be used without Muen.
Second problem in my mind would be imagining the spartan environment provided by Muen to be fulfilled with Genode runtime minus microkernel. This would be as follows.
Base-HW is a microkernel as you mentioned earlier. Like a layman I ask the name of this microkernel. Is it Nova? Again to my preliminary question ... we run a micro-kernel on microkernel to run virtualbox rather than virtualbox on Muen SK.
But when combined, Genode's version of VirtualBox can run on top of Muen.
Muen is a micro-hypervisor. What is the nature of inter-subject communication? Considering we don't like pure hypervisor approach.
I liked Nova's architecture much more and I would opt for Nova if formal verification could be as simple for it as in Muen. And the luxury of C++ too.
Regards, Shahbaz
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ genode-main mailing list genode-main@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genode-main
Hi,
On 18.04.2017 20:44, Nobody III wrote:
By the way, NOVA doesn't seem to be maintained anymore, except a bit by Genode developers. Is this observation correct?
the version of NOVA shipped with Genode is very well maintained. This kernel derivate (compared to the original version of the original author) got extended by various features (read the Genode book) which are essential to run smoothly with Genode. Calling this a 'bit' is plainly wrong. Maybe we don't advertise it all over the day, but it is the kernel with the best/most supported feature set on Genode/x86.
Cheers,
-
Alexander Boettcher -
Nobody III -
Shahbaz khan