2 ms·
You're right, but you're way ahead of me. I'd misunderstood the emphasis of the project, and was thinking I'd be a superuser, trusted by the kernel.
by MaxBarraclough 7y ago
You're right, but you're way ahead of me. I'd misunderstood the emphasis of the project, and was thinking I'd be a superuser, trusted by the kernel.
- zozbot234 7y agoWell, you would still need "superuser" privileges for things like adding new capabilities to the proof verifier. Of course this might open you up to security problems if you're relying on incorrect assumptions while doing that. But then, this project also has trusted components of its own, such as the JIT. A proof verifier can be a lot simpler than a JIT.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago> you would still need "superuser" privileges for things like adding new capabilities to the proof verifier. You mean to upgrade EBPF itself? Well of course. Same as any kernel upgrade. > Of course this might open you up to security problems if you're relying on incorrect assumptions while doing that. I don't follow. It's giving the system a full proof of safety. What assumptions are there? It seems very similar to Java's class verification, which doesn't suffer from issues with ungrounded assumptions. > this project also has trusted components of its own, such as the JIT. A proof verifier can be a lot simpler than a JIT. Interesting point. It might reduce the total amount of highly-trusted kernel code to approach things that way.