3 ms·
"The Linux CVE database was recently analyzed and it was determined that 96% of the vulnerabilities would be mitigated to at least non-critical status, if not c
by mcguire 6y ago
"The Linux CVE database was recently analyzed and it was determined that 96% of the vulnerabilities would be mitigated to at least non-critical status, if not completely eliminated, if linux were a microkernel architecture."
If Linux were a microkernel architecture, or if Linux were based on seL4?
If Linux were based on the OSI Mk microkernel (I think that was the name; it was Mach-based), every system operation would be roughly an order of magnitude slower[1].
As for formal methods, I'm singing in the choir.
[1] I've got the performance paper from the early '90s somewhere; it's hilarious. One benchmark was dhrystones: they didn't manage to physically slow down the processor. :-)
- darksaints 6y agoThe mach microkernel was definitely slow, but I think you'd be surprised at how fast the L3 and L4 family of microkernels are. L4 IPC calls are some 20x faster than mach IIRC. L4Linux, which is Linux running on top of L4, is only 6-7% slower than native Linux. Cache locality is one hell of a drug. With seL4, the entire kernel consumes ~160KiB, which easily fits in most CPU caches.