3 ms·
It doesn’t provide isolation. It is not even part of the conversation.
by srcreigh 12d ago
It doesn’t provide isolation. It is not even part of the conversation.
- Melatonic 12d agoI thought the whole point of a microVM is that it does provide isolation ?
- LeBit 12d agoWhat do you mean by "It doesn’t provide isolation" ? How so ?
- srcreigh 12d 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 12d agoBut smolvm provides kernel-level isolation. Much closer to firecracker than docker.
- srcreigh 12d 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