Le Jeudi 6 Octobre 2005 18:21, Bas Wijnen a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:13PM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: > > Hi Neal, > > > > "Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is one of the reasons why the kernel needs to provide some form > > > of support for capabilities. > > > > That's an opportunity to resurrect an old thread... ;-) > > > > What do you think of Amoeba's relatively simple approach? > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-08/msg00014.html > > I think anything protected by sparsity is fundamentally flawed and > unacceptable, especially for something as critical as the kernel. > > Of course I'm not the one whose acceptance it needs, though. ;-)
Hi, I don't know the typical probability of a logical gate to erroneously flipping a bit. But I consider that if the the probability of such an hardware error is higher than the probability of a false sparsity match, then relying on this sparsity may be a right choice. Anyway, not relying on sparsity at all (if possible) is still a better design. I'm not yet familiar enough with capabilities to know if it is possible. Simon. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
