Fare's kernel definition
Mon, 2 Jan 1995 11:55:46 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 28 Dec 1994, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> Now, either you agree with this definition or you don't. If you
> don't, then let's say your definition. But do not say you disagree
> because you read my messages with your definition
All I'm saying is your kernel definition is too restrictive.
> Now, with this definition of a kernel, the problem with kernels is
> that a kernel is some compulsory interface between objects
Now I'll agree that you're reading me correctly! I'm absolutely for a
compulsory interface between objects.
> Directly linked objects are *always* faster than objects that communicate
> through a kernel.
I'll agree again. You've been assuming calls betwen objects must go
through a kernel. In my system calling code can be inlined into modules
> It's not a matter of what your kernel is like. The same problems stands
> for just *any* kernel. How can you build a kernel with no overhead ?
Inline the kernel code into modules.
> As for security, you admitted yourself that it's a complex matter that
> can't be dealt with simply. How can a kernel enforce security ? It just
> cannot; it can fake security as under unix; but it cannot enforce it.
If each module must be entered at one point, then code at that point
(module defined) can enforce any desired security.
> *You* explain what you'll put in your kernel so you show how a kernel
> can provide fine-grained services (say down to integers), together with
> security, and still have no deadly overhead. For that I don't believe is
> possible. I've given plenty arguments for my thesis, whereas your
> only argument at this day has been prejudice aquired from self-claimed
> state-of-the-art technology fads (oops, no offence meant, but really,
> please give solid arguments).
As soon as I have my sample kernel ready, I'll show you how! :)