|
|
|
|
|
|
by GeorgeTirebiter
70 days ago
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance, but does this functionally mean we can treat this as a 'microkernel' a la minix? I always liked the 'tiny protected subsystem' in Ring 0, then a Ring 1 for Drivers (which are restartable, and dynamically loadable), then one or two rings for User processes (maybe Ring 2 for 'ls' etc and Ring 3 for typical user processes). I am also curious: What hardware enhancements would benefit 'lightweight, kernel-enforced isolation' ? Do we need memory tags? HW Capability Lists? ? ( I believe we've concentrated far too much in making "damn fast pdp-11s" with our hardware advances, and far less on building Reliable Systems -- even if a few percent of peak possible performance is consumed by extra HW. ) |
|
|