Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Reply to Virtualization.framework: supported VM lifetime and terminal-state proof after owning-process death
Thanks, Quinn. I read thread 848542 and understand your recommendation: use normal shutdown/stop paths and rely on Virtualization to clean up after an unexpected client exit, without an additional crash-cleanup mechanism. My remaining question concerns safe reuse of the VM’s backing disk. Is there a supported point observable by a surviving process at which guest execution and new I/O have ceased, and previously submitted I/O can no longer access that disk? Does waitpid completion for the owning process establish this ordering, or is there a separate public completion signal? I am asking about resource reuse under normal OS operation, not guest filesystem durability or absolute deadlines during kernel/hardware failures. If this completion boundary is unspecified, that clarification would help.
Topic: App & System Services SubTopic: Core OS Tags:
2w
Reply to Virtualization.framework: supported VM lifetime and terminal-state proof after owning-process death
Thanks, Quinn. I read thread 848542 and understand your recommendation: use normal shutdown/stop paths and rely on Virtualization to clean up after an unexpected client exit, without an additional crash-cleanup mechanism. My remaining question concerns safe reuse of the VM’s backing disk. Is there a supported point observable by a surviving process at which guest execution and new I/O have ceased, and previously submitted I/O can no longer access that disk? Does waitpid completion for the owning process establish this ordering, or is there a separate public completion signal? I am asking about resource reuse under normal OS operation, not guest filesystem durability or absolute deadlines during kernel/hardware failures. If this completion boundary is unspecified, that clarification would help.
Topic: App & System Services SubTopic: Core OS Tags:
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
2w