Jeroen Soeters

Do we have any infra we could leverage for this? I wouldn't mind spending some time on this. I think we should run those tests on every PR to ensure...

With a few small changes (https://github.com/aurae-runtime/aurae/pull/447) `auraed` is now running as true PID 1 in a VM spawned with cloud-hypervisor. The VM uses a custom kernel with PVH enabled so...

Apparently we had an open issue for the kernel discussion as well :) https://github.com/aurae-runtime/aurae/issues/238

In my experiments with cloud hypervisor I have also been using the TAP/virtio approach over IPv6 link-local. Cloud-hypervisor has support for `vhost-net` as well (FC doesn't) so that is something...

I was going to take a shot at this. Wondering, though, if it makes sense to just implement the [VmsService ](https://github.com/aurae-runtime/aurae/blob/main/api/v0/vms/vms.proto) and then build the `PodSandbox` stuff on top. This...

Issue for VmsService which we can then leverage for the "Pod Sandbox": https://github.com/aurae-runtime/aurae/issues/439

The more I look at the FC code, the more I do not want to implement our own hypervisor :) I will create an RFC once I have better organized...

Last time I looked at this cloud-hypervisor seemed like the best choice yea because of what you mention as well as `vhost-net` support. I had started some of that work...

I'm actually running into this exact same issue with the VMs. We need a strategy for provisioning certificates for `auraed` instances running as PID 1 on VMs.

Is this still an issue? All ignored tests in `auread` pass for me. Which 2 tests is this issue referring to?