[RFC Patch 0/7] kernel: Introduce multikernel architecture support

[Pasha Tatashin]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 4:27 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 2:01 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:25:59PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > This patch series introduces multikernel architecture support, enabling
> > > multiple independent kernel instances to coexist and communicate on a
> > > single physical machine. Each kernel instance can run on dedicated CPU
> > > cores while sharing the underlying hardware resources.
> > >
> > > The multikernel architecture provides several key benefits:
> > > - Improved fault isolation between different workloads
> > > - Enhanced security through kernel-level separation
> > > - Better resource utilization than traditional VM (KVM, Xen etc.)
> > > - Potential zero-down kernel update with KHO (Kernel Hand Over)
> >
> > This list is like asking AI to list benefits, or like the whole cover
> > letter has that type of feel.
>
> Sorry for giving you that feeling. Please let me know how I can
> improve it for you.
>
> >
> > I'd probably work on benchmarks and other types of tests that can
> > deliver comparative figures, and show data that addresses workloads
> > with KVM, namespaces/cgroups and this, reflecting these qualities.
>
> Sure, I think performance comes after usability, not vice versa.
>
>
> >
> > E.g. consider "Enhanced security through kernel-level separation".
> > It's a pre-existing feature probably since dawn of time. Any new layer
> > makes obviously more complex version "kernel-level separation". You'd
> > had to prove that this even more complex version is more secure than
> > pre-existing science.
>
> Apologize for this. Do you mind explaining why this is more complex
> than the KVM/Qemu/vhost/virtio/VDPA stack?
>
> >
> > kexec and its various corner cases and how this patch set addresses
> > them is the part where I'm most lost.
>
> Sorry for that. I will post Youtube videos to explain kexec in detail,
> please follow our Youtube channel if you are interested. (I don't
> want to post a link here in case people think I am promoting my
> own interest, please email me privately.)
>
> >
> > If I look at one of multikernel distros (I don't know any other
> > tbh) that I know it's really VT-d and that type of hardware
> > enforcement that make Qubes shine:
> >
> > https://www.qubes-os.org/
> >
> > That said, I did not look how/if this is using CPU virtualization
> > features as part of the solution, so correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Qubes OS is based on Xen:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS
>
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure whether this is aimed to be alternative to
> > namespaces/cgroups or vms but more in the direction of Solaris Zones
> > would be imho better alternative at least for containers because
> > it saves the overhead of an extra kernel. There's also a patch set
> > for this:
> >
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/780364/?ref=alian.info
>
> Solaris Zones also share a single kernel. Or maybe I guess
> you meant Kernel Zones? Isn't it a justification for our multikernel
> approach for Linux? :-)

Solaris kernel zones use sun4v hypervisor to protect isolation. There
is no such thing on x86 and arm.

Pasha