Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all the mind share that terraform gets you would thing vagrant would at least be known but alas
Somebody educate me about the problem Packer would solve for you in 2024?
Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
111–120 of 256 posts
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#112As a permanent "out of style" curmudgeon in the last ~15 years, I like that people are discovering that maybe VMs are in fact the best approach for a lot of workloads and the LXC cottage industry and Docker industrial complex that developed around solving problems created by themselves or solved decades ago might need to take a hike. Modern "containers" were invented to make things more reproducible ( check ) and sim…
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
GVisor basically works by intercepting all Linux syscalls, and emulating a good chunk of the Linux kernel in userspace code. In theory this allows lowering the overhead per VM, and more fine-grained introspection and rate limiting / balancing across VMs, because not every VM needs to run it's own kernel that only interacts with the environment through hardware interfaces. Interaction happens through the Linux syscall…
I actually wonder how much "overhead" a VM actually has. i.e. a linux kernel that doesn't do anything (say perhaps just boots to an init that mounts proc and every n seconds read in/prints out /proc/meminfo) how much memory would the kernel actually be using? So if processes in gvisor map to processes on the underlying kernel, I'd agree it gives one a better ability to introspect (at least in an easy manner). It give…
There's already some memory sharing available using DAX in Kata Containers at least: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/main...
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#114Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody educate me about the problem Packer would solve for you in 2024?
I think the thread is more about how docker was a reaction to the vagrant/packer ecosystem that was deemed overweight but was in many ways was a “docker like thing” but VMs.
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
VT-x. You should get the name of the technology right before defending it. VT-d is the I/O virtualization technology. When did it become customary to defend people making claims of security instead of laughing in their face even though history shows them such claims to be a endless clown parade? How about you present the extraordinary evidence needed to support the extraordinary claim that there are no vulnerabilitie…
Not an especially impressive flex, but I'm not above trying to dunk on people for misspelling things either, so I'm not going to high-horse you about it (obviously i am). The history of KVM and hardware virtualization is not an endless clown parade. Find a vulnerability researcher to talk to about OpenBSD sometime, though. https://isopenbsdsecu.re/
Notice that at no point does anyone actually show up with a working exploit.
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#117My big struggle with docker/containers vs VMs is the storage layer (on containers). I’m sure it’s mostly lack of experience / knowledge on my end, but I never have a doubt or concern that my storage is persistent and clearly defined when using a VM based workload. I cannot say the same for my docker/container based workloads, I’m always a tad concerned about the persistence of storage, (or the resource management in…
Of course, once this is fixed and you start using read-only containers, one wonders why “container” exists as a persistent, named concept.
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#118As a permanent "out of style" curmudgeon in the last ~15 years, I like that people are discovering that maybe VMs are in fact the best approach for a lot of workloads and the LXC cottage industry and Docker industrial complex that developed around solving problems created by themselves or solved decades ago might need to take a hike. Modern "containers" were invented to make things more reproducible ( check ) and sim…
Docker’s the best cross-distro rolling-release package manager and init system for services—staying strictly out of managing the base system, which is great—that I know of. I don’t know of anything that’s even close, really. All the other stuff about it is way less important to me than that part.
Docker's not a package manager. It doesn't know what packages are, which is part of why the chunks that make up Docker containers (image layers) are so coarse. This is also part of why many Docker images are so huge: you don't know exactly the packages you need, strictly speaking, so you start from a whole OS. This is also why your Dockerfiles all invoke real package managers— Docker can't know how to install packages if it doesn't know what they are!
It's also not cross-platform, or at least 99.999% of images you might care about aren't— they're Linux-only.
It's also not a service manager, unless you mean docker-compose (which is not as good as systemd or any number of other process supervisors) or Docker Swarm (which has lost out to Kubernetes). (I'm not sure what you even mean by 'init system for containers' since most containers don't include an init system.)
There actually are cross-platform package managers out there, too. Nix, Pkgsrc, Homebrew, etc. All of those I mentioned and more have rolling release repositories as well. ('Rolling release' is not a feature of package managers; there is no such thing as a 'rolling release package manager'.)
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As the person who created docker (well, before docker - see https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/atc10/tech/full_papers/ ... and compare to docker) I picked the name and wrote the first prototype (python2) of Docker in 2012. I had not read your document (dated 2010). I didn't really read English that well at the time, I probably wouldn't have been able to understand it anyways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipl…
I'd note I didn't say you copied it, just that I created it first (i.e. "compare paper to docker". also, as you note, its possible someone else did it too, but at least my conception got through academic peer-review / patent office, yeah, there's a patent, never been attempted to be enforced though to my knowledge). when I describe my work (I actually should have used quotes here), I generally give air quotes when sa…
At the time, I didn't know what I was doing. Maybe my colleagues did some more, but I doubt that. I just wanted to stop waking up at night because our crappy container management code was broken again. The most brittle part was the lifecycle of containers (and their filesystem). I recall being very adamant about the layered filesystem, because it allowed to share storage and RAM across running (containerized) processes. This saves in pure storage and RAM usage, but also in CPU time, because the same code (like the libc for example) is cached across all processes. Of course this only works if you have a lot of common layers. But I remember at the time, it made for very noticeable savings. Anyways, fun tidbits.
I wonder how much faster/better it would have been if inspired by your academic research. Or maybe not knowing anything made it so we solved the problems at hand in order. I don't know. I left the company shortly after. They renamed to Docker, and made it what it is today.
Re: Unfashionably secure: why we use isolated VMs
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you say approaches like gvisor or nabla containers provide more/enough evolution on the security front? Or is there something new on the horizon that excites you more as a prospect?
been out of the space for a bit (though interviewing again, so might get back into it), gvisor at least as the "userspace" hypervisor, seemed to provide minimal value vs modern hypervisor systems with low overhead / quick boot VMs (ala firecracker). With that said, I only looked at it years ago, so I could very well be out of date on it. Wasn't aware of Nabla, but they seem to be going with the unikernel approach (ba…
There is a reason why Linux is over 30 years old and basically owns the server market.
As you note, since it's not really a large existing market you basically have to bootstrap it which makes it that much harder.
We (nanovms.com) are lucky enough to have enough customers that have helped push things forward.
For the record I don't know of any of our customers or users that are using them for HFT purposes - something like 99% of our crowd is on public cloud with plain old webapp servers.