[vbox-dev] VBoxBFE or VirtualBox

[Ribhi Kamal]

Thanks,
I think that in my case I will have two binaries and each is responsible of
starting a specific type of virtual machine. Everything will be hard coded,
the network interfaces, the ISO location, guest controllers... etc

I'm worried about starting two virtual machines at the same time, is there
going to be some conflicts when calling the kernel driver (vboxdrv) ? I
guess my question is, is there some danger from starting two VMs using
VBoxBFE (without COM)?

Finally, does anyone know if Oracle has something similar to what I'm doing
-- No COM/XML?  Money is not a problem (not yet anyway).

Thanks again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Alexey Eromenko <al4321 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Ribhi Kamal <rbhkamal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem with COM (XPCOM too?) is that its very hard to lock down.
> > Especially when %50+ of people run everything with admin privs. So I'm
> > trying to reduce the attack vectors that can be done from the host OS on
> the
> > virtualvbox installation it self.
> >
> > Can you please explain a bit about the "VM synchronization point" issue?
>
> "VM synchronization point" is a single host management layer.
>
> The biggest difference between Qemu and VirtualBox engines, from
> programmer's point of view, is that if you write any program for Qemu,
> you must reimplement management layer yourself.
>
> VirtualBox already provides single-host management layer (via
> VBoxSVC). Registered VMs. Each VM remembers it's parameters, such as
> RAM, HDDs assigned, Network adapters (along with MAC addresses),
> etc...
>
> --
> -Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
>
> _______________________________________________
> vbox-dev mailing list
> vbox-dev at virtualbox.org
> http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
>



-- 
-- Ribhi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.virtualbox.org/pipermail/vbox-dev/attachments/20110510/d8edccaa/attachment.html>