4 ms·
smolvm integrates with k8s (https://smolmachines.com/docs/guides/kubernetes-in-a-microvm#vm-per-pod https://smolmachines.com/docs/guides/kubernetes-in-a-microvm
by LeBit 2mo ago
smolvm integrates with k8s (https://smolmachines.com/docs/guides/kubernetes-in-a-microvm#vm-per-pod https://smolmachines.com/docs/guides/kubernetes-in-a-microvm...) and can mount s3 buckets (https://smolmachines.com/docs/local/machine-lifecycle-cli-reference#mount-an-s3-bucket https://smolmachines.com/docs/local/machine-lifecycle-cli-re...).
I wouldn’t dismiss smolvm so fast. It brings together many ideas that make the whole very interesting.
- srcreigh 2mo agoIt doesn’t provide isolation. It is not even part of the conversation.
- Melatonic 2mo agoI thought the whole point of a microVM is that it does provide isolation ?
- LeBit 2mo agoWhat do you mean by "It doesn’t provide isolation" ? How so ?
- srcreigh 2mo agoThis post explains how a GPT agent broke out of qemu VM. It could not break out of firecracker. https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/08/26/vms-wont-contain-cyber-capable-agents/ https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/08/26/vms-wont-contain-cyb... Why? Firecracker mounts very few host systems into the VM, exposing minimal host code to malicious guests. Qemu and smolvm expose much more. So yeah, smolvm is more like a docker or qemu alternative, definitely useful but NOT relevant to the discussion of sandboxing malicious code
- chrisweekly 2mo agoBut smolvm provides kernel-level isolation. Much closer to firecracker than docker.
- srcreigh 2mo agoIf your networking stack and filesystem and who knows what else are exposed to the guest, its not isolation. It’s better than Docker, but it can’t be compared to Firecracker at all. Firecracker actually minimizes the attack surface whereas smolvm does not