Linked by fvillanustre on Sun 1st May 2011 21:51 UTC
Linux "Qubes OS comes from an elegant concept: if you can isolate functional components within disposable containers, and you can separate those components that can be tainted through their interaction with the outside world from the core subsystems, you stand a good chance to preserve the integrity and security of the base Operating System at the possible expense of needing to jump through some hoops to move data around the system. All in all it sounds like a good proposition if it can be demonstrated to be practical." Read the full review.
Permalink for comment 471524
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yikes! Mach Kernel Organization
by hackus on Mon 2nd May 2011 01:33 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

vs Static Kernel Organization....

Since this is so obvious...let me start by saying:

1) Separation of these functions is nothing new. It has already been tried to various degrees using Mach.

2) Seems like a great idea, however, implementing the details reveals really really bad performance for lots things.

For one, context switching.

3) Unlike the static guys, who pretty much hammered out how they want to organize a static kernel, and what operations should be built into the CPU hardware wise to speed things up, not so in the Mach world.

Nobody in the Mach world can come up with a agreed plan on how to do all of this compartmentalized sharing of messaging and security context switching between parts.

Till everyone agrees, the hardware manufacturers are not going to support it.

Till then, any sort of non static kernel OS implementation is going to get its arse beat in economy of scale and performance.

Furthermore, advances in static kernel design are gradually eliminating a lot of the concerns over shared address space issues.

By the time the Mach guys figure out what they want or need, static kernels will already be there, and probably beyond.

-Hack

Reply Score: 1