skuenzer

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   Very true. And we also did not speak about the heavily multiplexed system calls like `ioctl`.
2. 2.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   It is true that MirageOS has its focus on OCaml as a type-safe language. Its libraries are implemented in OCaml. However, even with having most parts written in C in Unikraft, we are also able to apply dead-code elimination and link-time op
3. 3.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   I agree, an argument for 4 is the fact that the hypervisor attack surface can be scaled up and down by adding/removing virtual devices. There is only a little set that stays permanently, like 30+ hypercalls on Xen. Overall compared to
4. 4.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   This is true, there are a number of embedded frameworks that you could use as well and even run it as virtual machine too. In contrast to this we want to make it as seamless as possible by still providing you the Linux-OS-like layers if you
5. 5.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   Yes, we have first experiments to run on AWS [1], we are currently up-streaming the left pieces so that everyone can try it by themselves. In my point of view, a main difference to rump is the finer grained modularity of our libraries. In t
6. 6.▲
   by skuenzer 5y ago

   With Unikraft as being a librarized unikernel system you can actually choose if the OS layer should provide you a network stack (likely written in C/C++) for your runtime or if you prefer doing it in a higher-level language. Similar to