4 ms·
i am sad operating systems need to have such calls implemented while most modern (x86_64) architectures have so many features to facilitate safe and sound progr
by sim7c00 2y ago
i am sad operating systems need to have such calls implemented while most modern (x86_64) architectures have so many features to facilitate safe and sound programming and computing. legacy crap en mentality , and trying to patch old systems built on paradigms not matching the current world and knowledge rather than rebuilding really put a break on progress in computing, and put litterally billions at risk.
not to say these things arent steps in the right direction, but if you let go of current ideals on how operating systems work, and take into account current systems, knowledge about them, and knowledge about what people want from systems, you can envision systems free from the burden and risks put on developers and users today.
yes architecture bugs exist, but software hardly takes advantage of current features truly,so arguing about architectural bugs is a moot point. theres cheaper ways to compromise, and always will be if things are built on shaky foundations
- GolDDranks 2y agoElighten me: what unused/underused safety features x86_64 has that wouldn't require the OS to have some method of using or enabling them? Why do you think mseal isn't warranted and what would be better instead?
- gcr 2y agoi read the above poster's critique about operating system and API design more generally. x86-64 can do wonderful things with memory access paradigms, why must we keep using Linux and its baked-in assumptions about how memory should work? Let's instead rewrite everything to be memory-safe, with safety enforced by everything we've learned in the last 60 years of architecture design. That's what I think the parent post is saying. (I personally gently disagree)
- pjc50 2y agoSuch as what, though?