Re: [libvirt] RFC [3/3]: Lock manager usage scenarios

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:20:13PM +0200, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:35 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > Overall, this looks workable to me. As proposed, this assumes a 1:1 > > > relation between LockManager process and managed VMs. But I guess you > > > can still have a central manager process that manages all the VMs, by > > > having the lock manager plugin spawn a simple shim process that does all > > > the communication with the central lock manager. > > > > I could have decided it such that it didn't assume presence of a angel > > process around each VM, but I think it is easier to be able to presume > > that there is one. It can be an incredibly thin stub if desired, so I > > don't think it'll be too onerous on implementations > > > We are looking into the possibility of not having a process manage a > VM but rather having the sync_manager process register with a central > daemon and exec into qemu (or anything else) so assuming there is a > process per VM is essentially false. But the verb could be used for > "unregistering" the current instance with the main manager so the verb > does have it use. > > Further more, even if we decide to leave the current 'sync_manager > process per child process' system as is for now. The general direction > is a central deamon per host for managing all the leases and guarding > all processes. So be sure to keep that in mind while assembling the API. Having a single daemon per host that exec's the VMs is explicitly *not* something we intend to support because the QEMU process needs to inherit its process execution state from libvirtd. It is fundamental to the security architecture that processes are completely isolated the moment that libvirtd has spawned them. We don't want to offload all the security driver setup into a central lock manager daemon. Aside from this we also pass open file descriptors down from libvirtd to the QEMU daemon.

Daniel