On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 16:53 +0200, Espen Skoglund wrote: > [Jonathan S Shapiro] > > Fundamentally, a SASOS abandons the idea of a process-private > > namespace, and reduces all addresses to global names. > > > Contrast this with the current situation in L4, where an > > *overwhelming* effort is being made to *eliminate* global names > > because of severe security issues. > > I'd strike the "*overwhelming*" part of what you say here. > Eliminating global names is actually proven quite easy. Further, > perhaps an even stronger motivation to do so besides security has been > to better facilitate features such as, migration, checkpointing, etc. > > eSk
You are absolutely correct. The word "overwhelming" was not appropriate here. >From the outside, it does appear to me that L4.sec is a substantial change relative to L4, but it probably looks that way for Coyotos also, it it really isn't true for either system. Thanks for the reminder! shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
