I might be flamed for this statement but not being able to run inside a

virtualized environment is not an option in the future.

Most servers you can buy today are to powerful for only taking care of

one task.

It is really handy to be able to "shuffle" around the cpu:s to the

virtual machine that needs it at the moment.
OpenBSD is much to powerful to be used only on soekris and wrap boxes as

a firewall for the homeuser.

If OpenBSD doesn't adopt to the virtualization trend it will used only

as an obscure firewall box.
If I need to run linux as Dom0 to be able to put most of my OpenBSD

machines into one single box(well two actually if you want failover, and

that you probably want)

The security sacrifice is OK to me, at least knowing that the option is

to not run OpenBSD at all since I would need too many machines and to

much electricity and force me to build a new serverroom.
The firewall and the KDC will probably not be virtualized yet, but

everything else will soon be.
Luca Corti wrote:
>On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 01:11 +0200, ropers wrote:

quoted text
>

>

>>unavoidable. The question is, is that a worthwhile trade-off? Is this

>>a reason not to support Xen? Or should the user be given that option

>>regardless of the inherent limitations and consequences?

>>

>>

>

>A proper Dom0 port of XEN to OpenBSD would solve this by removing the

>linux dependency. However this would probably require a significant

>effort on OpenBSD side and a XEN Hypervisor code audit.

>

>Also from earlier discussion on the list it seems this kind of

>virtualization may impact on security, which is in direct contrast with

>OpenBSD goals. Can someone elaborate more on this?

>

>ciao

>

>Luca