3 ms·
> If it is not, it is not "completely isolated", at least not in the usual sense of the word. Well that's where lunatic comes in. Lunatic provides the isolatio
by dcow 4y ago
> If it is not, it is not "completely isolated", at least not in the usual sense of the word.
Well that's where lunatic comes in. Lunatic provides the isolation and abstraction so you can run various wasm binaries side by side. If one of those binaries segfaults, lunatic presumably catches the interrupt and kills the corresponding wasm instance that caused it rather than just giving up and crashing.
- codethief 4y agoI was rather referring to security boundaries – if lunatic processes run inside the same OS-level process, the sandboxing cannot, almost by definition, be as good.
- dcow 4y agoWhy not? But you’re probably right. Anyway I doubt this os a full blown hypervisor yet. Probably more an application deployment model where you trust everything you deploy, similar to K8s.
- codethief 4y ago> Why not? Because if there is a vulnerability in Lunatic, one Lunatic process could (in theory) gain access to another Lunatic process's data. Kernel-space processes protect against that through various mechanisms and their implementation has been battle-tested over decades.
- dcow 4y agoThe kernel has vulns all the time. It’s super complicated and complex and C—that’s the real problem. Lunatic is new and simple. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Lunatic was more secure than the kernel.