grub / grub2 conflicts
jspaleta at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 18:48:10 UTC 2011
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford at redhat.com> wrote:
> See my above comment about cross-compilers. There are certainly use
> cases for having the tool install and live on the host. As for
> security, if you assume that the host is locked down tight with no
> running services besides sshd and libvirtd, then it is arguably the
> better place to have a tool like grub installed than in the guest which
> might be running apache and considerably more open to attack than the host.
I don't think the problem is with the use case per-say. I think problem is
grub as a tool was never designed with this use case in mind, and I think
what people are trying to say that its amazing that grub toolset has ever
worked for Richard's host/guest use case and he's gotten very lucky relying
on what is essentially undefined/unverified behavior even prior to the
introduction of grub2 when he was primarily working with guests and hosts
using different grub1 variants. Virtualization changes the rules of the
game, and we have to be very careful not to assume that tools like grub
correctly anticipated the needs of a highly virtualized environment.
Something is needed, its just not clear to me the tools we have fits the
need well enough to be reliable.
-jef"When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail"spaleta
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel