Re: Information on implementing L4
Gernot Heiser <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.micro-kernel.l4.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 14 Sep 2018, at 15:00, Andrew Warkentin <[email protected]> wrote: > > To me, language-based OSes have always seemed interesting but a bit > impractical and limiting. A language-based OS would face more of a > challenge when it comes to success in the real world than a > conventional OS would (that's one reason why I'm writing an advanced > Unix-like OS, since that is what is most likely to be used in the real > world). I think when you say “language-based OS” you mean type-system enforced security rather than MMU-enforced security. I haven’t seen any approach of this sort that didn’t end up with an unsafe but trusted blob of code (language run-time) that’s as big if not bigger than your typical L4 kernel, besides having higher run-time overheads. I fail to see how this would be better in any way. Particularly when you can have your L4 kernel formally verified (i.e. seL4). Gernot _______________________________________________ l4-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/mailman/listinfo/l4-hackers