[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: user-mode-linux for Mach?

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: user-mode-linux for Mach?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:50:21 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i


Funny :-).  Some weeks ago I also got the idea about porting user-mode
Linux to GNU/Hurd.  (But didn't start with it yet.)

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:24:04PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote:
> Would Mach benefit from using user-mode-linux?

As I undestand it, user-mode Linux is a ``normal'' user-space program and
as such it wouldn't be ported to Mach, but to our user-space environment.

> I'm thinking that IF user-mode-linux could be ported to Mach, it MIGHT
> be possible to modify it in order to use some of linux's drivers in
> user-space.

I can't approve or negate that, but I don't think that Linux's user-mode
Linux can run (hardware) device drivers inside such an instance.

Okay.  I may be wrong: ``As of 15 Apr 2001, it is possible to do USB
development under UML. Johan Verrept posted a patch which allows a USB
device driver in UML to control a physical USB device on the host.''
This is from <http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/projects.html>,
which also has a short section about porting, as well as have those:
<http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/ols2001/node27.html> and
<http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/als2001/node16.html>.  Here are
some tiny bits about internals:
<http://www.user-mode-linux.org/%7Eblaisorblade/internals.html> and these
two project might perhaps be worth looking at:
<http://umlwin32.sourceforge.net/> and
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/line/>.  (Those are the links which I
assembled some weeks ago when I was quickly having a look.)

> Could something like this work? I know there are many serious if's 
> involved here and it is very likely i have some major flaw in my 
> reasoning, so please share your thoughts.

It would be worth a try.  An essential thing I saw when I browsed through
the urls was to be able to do system call interception.  I do not (yet)
know if that is possible in our system.  Perhaps someone else can comment
on that?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]