Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(uhyve): spawn UhyveVm in a new thread #827

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

n0toose
Copy link
Member

@n0toose n0toose commented Dec 3, 2024

Part of an ongoing effort to support Landlock without enforcing restrictions globally, as Uhyve is not presumed to only spawn one UhyveVm before exiting. It is also my hope that I will be able to benchmark things better.

Part of an ongoing effort to support Landlock without enforcing
restrictions globally, as Uhyve is not presumed to only spawn one
UhyveVm before exiting. It is also my hope that I will be able to
benchmark things better.
Copy link
Member Author

@n0toose n0toose left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI: I am not sure how advantageous that is. Please keep that in mind before merging :D

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 3, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.49%. Comparing base (fa6e002) to head (3b2461e).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/bin/uhyve.rs 0.00% 13 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #827      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.56%   71.49%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        3028     3031       +3     
==========================================
  Hits         2167     2167              
- Misses        861      864       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@jounathaen
Copy link
Member

Honestly, presently this only introduces overhead without any benefits. I'm looking forward to the landlock implementation, maybe this change will be able to highlight its benefits better then.

@jounathaen
Copy link
Member

As discussed in person, the underlying issue will be solved in another way

@jounathaen jounathaen closed this Dec 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants